Bottle Bill Study

New York State
Pollution Prevention Institute
Final Report for:
New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation
Impact Study of NYS Bottle Bill Expansion
November 4, 2019
Prepared by:
New York State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I)
Rochester Institute of Technology
111 Lomb Memorial Drive
Building 78, Room 2000
Rochester, New York 14623-0426
Phone: (585) 475-2872
Fax: (585) 475-5250
E-mail: nysp2i@rit.edu
Website: http://www.nysp2i.rit.edu
1 of 64
New York State Pollution Prevention Institute
Disclaimer
This technical report is prepared consistent with the terms and purposes of the Research
Agreement between New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and
Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) on behalf of the New York State Pollution Prevention
Institute (NYSP2I) at the Golisano Institute for Sustainability (GIS) that was effective July 1, 2019,
and funded by a grant to RIT from by the Environmental Protection Fund as administered by the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. All conclusions herein are subject to the
research disclaimer of warranty, indemnification, liability limitations, and all other provisions,
described in the Research Agreement executed by RIT and NYSDEC (the “Parties”).
RIT, GIS, and NYSP2I cannot endorse any particular product or service. This report is the result
of the tests and/or studies conducted and described; it is not to be interpreted as any type of
specific endorsement of NYSDEC’s product or service. Further, any opinions, findings,
conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of New York State.
This report is intended for NYSDEC’s internal use only. NYSDEC may use the report externally if
used in its entirety. Any other use of less than a complete version of this report is allowed only if
NYSDEC first obtains the written permission of RIT.
2 of 64
Table of Contents
Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................. 2
A. Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 4
B. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 5
C. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6
D. Project Objective ................................................................................................................. 8
E. Work Performed and Results .............................................................................................. 8
Task 1. Benchmark U.S. bottle bills and other laws covering wine and liquor bottles 9
Task 2. Identify and review all proposed NYS Bottle Bill expansion legislation from the
2019 New York State Legislative Session 18
Task 3. Gather anecdotal information from stakeholders 23
Task 4. Identify the scope of the potential expansion to wine and liquor bottles 28
Task 5. Complete a high-level cost / benefit analysis 33
Task 6. Understand available capacity to use more recycled glass 54
F. Conclusions and Next Steps ..............................................................................................56
G. Appendix ............................................................................................................................58
References ...............................................................................................................................58
3 of 64
A. Definitions
There are several key terms representing parts of the bottle bill system and specific stakeholders
that are used throughout this report, which are outlined below. Table 1 lists the major
stakeholders, along with their definition and several examples of NYS businesses that fall within
that category. Table 2 summarizes key terms used in the discussion and analysis of the bottle bill
expansion. Additional terms are defined where necessary in their respective sections.
Table 1 - Stakeholders
Legal Term Definition Examples
Bottler  A person, firm, or corporation who bottles,  Weis Vineyards
cans, or otherwise packages beverages to  Black Button Distilling
which no other person, firm, or corporation  Constellation Brands
has the right to bottle
 A person, firm, or corporation who imports
filled beverage containers into the U.S.
Deposit Initiator  The bottler of containers  Bottlers

 The distributor of containers if such  Manufacturers
distributor's container purchase of was not,  Distributors
directly or indirectly, from a registered  Weis Vineyards
deposit initiator  Black Button Distilling
 A dealer who sells or offers for sale  Constellation Brands
containers in NYS if the dealer’s container
purchase was not, directly or indirectly, from
a registered deposit initiator
 An agent acting on behalf of a registered
deposit initiator
Distributor  Any person, firm, or corporation who  Allied Wine Corp

engages in the sale or offer for sale of  American Wine
beverages to a dealer Wholesalers, LLC
 Barton Distillers Import
Corp
 Brooklyn Spirits, LLC
3rd-Party Agent  Pickup service providers  TOMRA

 Envipco
 Central Recycling
Cooperative
Dealer  Every person, firm, or corporation who  Retail Storefronts

engages in the sale of beverages for off-  Century Wines
premises consumption in NYS  Pinnacle Wine & Liquor
 Whitehouse Liquor & Wine
Note: Data for stakeholder definitions from (New York State).

4 of 64
Table 2: Key terms and definitions associated with bottle bill functions
Term Definition
Container Collection Process whereby dealers and redemption centers receive deposit containers for
redemption.
Container Deposit Financial amount (currently 5-cents) charged per unit on beverage containers
eligible for redemption.
Container Pickup Mandated requirement for Deposit Initiators to pick up bottle bill containers from
Dealers and Redemption Centers once redeemed.
Curbside Recycling Collection of household recyclables by waste transporter
Deposit Logistics Processes and systems used to move and report on the deposit money from
stakeholder to stakeholder.
Handling Fee Fee (currently 3.5-cents) paid by the Deposit Initiator to the Dealer to help cover
operational costs associated with accepting redeemable containers.
Recycling Rate Percentage of deposit containers recycled through redemption or curbside

collection.
Redemption Rate Percentage of deposit containers returned for deposit.
Unredeemed Container deposits not claimed by the consumer within one quarter of the initial
Deposits purchase date.
Note: Data for bottle bill functions and definitions from (New York State) (New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance, 2016) (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2018).
B. Executive Summary
As the foreign markets for recyclable materials have been largely cut off through China’s National
Sword policy, recycling markets across the United States, including those in New York State have
been struggling to sustain themselves. One longstanding challenge that has been exacerbated
by this situation is glass recycling. The challenges surrounding glass recycling through single
stream curbside and drop off networks in New York State is well documented. One proposed
solution to address these challenges and increase recycling of container glass is to divert a portion
of glass, in the form of wine and liquor bottles, away from municipal and private recyclers and
through the NYS container redemption system instead.
5 of 64
The New York State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I) at Rochester Institute of Technology
(RIT) conducted a study investigating the high level implications that adding wine and liquor
bottles to the list of redeemable containers in the NYS Bottle Bill would have.
The study drew upon published research and data sets as well as direct conversations with
stakeholders to get an initial sense of what and how components of the recycling system would
be affected if this proposal were implemented. The key elements of this study were to:
 Benchmark U.S. bottle bills and other laws covering wine and liquor bottles
 Identify and review all proposed NYS Bottle Bill expansion legislation from the 2019 New
York State Legislative Session
 Gather anecdotal information from stakeholders
 Identify the scope of the potential expansion to wine and liquor bottles
 Complete a high level cost /benefit analysis
 Understand available capacity to use more recycled glass
Based on the work performed, NYSP2I identified several key findings, which are grouped into four
main categories: general, scope of expansion, cost, and logistical:
General
 Higher deposit amounts on containers correlate with higher redemption rates.
 All three states that include wine and/or liquor bottles in their bottle bills either control the
sale of those beverages at retail or allow their sale at grocery and/or convenience stores.
 Feedback on the bottle bill expansion to wine and liquor bottles is generally consistent by
stakeholder group: opposed by wine and liquor industry, and supported by recycling
industry and non-industry stakeholders.
 Deposit glass is less contaminated than glass collected as part of curbside, single-stream
recycling programs, increasing recyclability and marketability of secondary use glass.
Scope of Expansion
 If wine and liquor bottles were added to the NYS Bottle Bill, approximately 4,500
businesses in NY would be affected as either dealers, deposit initiators, or both.
6 of 64
 Based on 2015 sales data of glass wine and liquor bottles in New York, a bottle bill
expansion would impact approximately 488M containers.
 There are 164 recyclable handling and recovery facilities (RHRFs/MRFs) in NYS that
would be affected by the diversion of wine and liquor bottles from curbside recycling into
the redemption system.
 Using existing redemption rate values for containers under the current NYS Bottle Bill, the
change in recycling rate of wine and liquor bottles would be approximately a 65% increase.
Cost
 Expanding the bottle bill to include liquor and wine will be costly for the industry
o New deposit initiators and dealers would experience approximately $40M in direct
costs.
o New York State would gain approximately $7M in revenue.
 There is a financial disincentive for deposit initiators and the state to increase container
redemption rates.
 Recycling programs would benefit financially from the removal of glass (i.e., wine and
liquor bottles) from curbside recycling.
Logistical
 Most reverse vending machines would be able to handle the majority of wine and liquor
bottles, but updates would need to be made to RVM software to be able to track containers
properly.
 The relatively small and dispersed nature of wine and liquor retail locations may cause
cost of third party pick-up services to rise for these customers.
 Estimates indicate that regional glass manufacturers have capacity to use the entire
amount of cullet produced from wine and liquor bottles, assuming quality and cost
specifications are met.
7 of 64
C. Introduction
Recycling in New York State is primarily conducted through two major avenues – curbside
recycling services, where consumer–separated materials from residents and businesses are
collected at the point of generation and bottle deposits, where consumers are responsible for
returning eligible containers to a store or redemption center in exchange for their deposit on that
container ($0.05) being returned to them. The types of containers eligible for deposit redemption
are regulated under New York State’s Returnable Container Act, commonly known as the Bottle
Bill. Due to many factors, including the steep decrease in foreign markets for recyclable materials,
the recycling system in NYS is facing challenges with material supply/demand, material quality
and cost. One proposed solution to these challenges has been to expand the type of materials
included under the NYS Bottle Bill to include wine and liquor bottles.
D. Project Objective
The objective of this project is to understand at a high level, based on available information, the
implications of expanding the current NYS Bottle Bill to include wine and liquor bottles.
E. Work Performed and Results
To gain a high level understanding of the implications of including wine and liquor bottles as
deposit containers in New York State, the following tasks were performed:
 Benchmark U.S. bottle bills and other laws covering wine and liquor bottles
 Identify and review all proposed NYS Bottle Bill expansion legislation from the 2019
New York State Legislative Session
 Gather anecdotal information from stakeholders
 Identify the scope of the potential expansion to wine and liquor bottles
 Complete a high level cost /benefit analysis
 Understand available capacity to use more recycled glass
In the sections below, the work performed and results associated with each of the tasks is
summarized. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the components of the current
NYS Bottle Bill would apply in the same manner to wine and liquor bottles if they were added.
8 of 64
How this assumption applies to different pieces of the analysis is discussed more specifically in
the relevant sections below.
Task 1. Benchmark U.S. bottle bills and other laws covering wine and liquor bottles
Task 1 Methods
Existing U.S. bottle bills were benchmarked using data from the Container Recycling Institute
(CRI), the EPA, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and information published directly
by states with bottle bills. Specific bottle bill components reviewed include which beverages are
accepted by which states, redemption rate by state, deposit value by state, the allocation of
unredeemed deposits, and glass recycling rates in terms of deposit vs. non-deposit containers.
Other types of laws were also benchmarked to understand additional methods used to incentivize
container recycling besides bottle bills. To do this, keyword searches were conducted in an effort
to both define and identify Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mandates and/or Product
Stewardship Programs (PSP), and advanced disposal fee programs at the state level. This
search included proposed and existing legislation, but excluded any laws or programs outside of
the United States. However, some non-U.S. related information and anecdotes were found
through the research and were included where appropriate, but information on these programs
was not sought out as it was beyond the scope of this study. Through online research,
conversations with stakeholders, and review of state liquor laws, the high level distribution system
was also summarized and compared for currently-redeemable alcoholic beverage containers
(e.g., beer) as well as wine and liquor bottles in New York State. Legal points of sale (i.e., grocery
store, liquor store, etc.) were also reviewed for NYS and the states that currently include wine
and/or liquor in their deposit systems.
Task 1 Results
Bottle Bills/ Returnable Container Laws
U.S. glass container recycling rates as reported by the EPA and the Container Recycling Institute
(CRI) are depicted in Figure 1 . In 2015, over 9.1 million tons of glass containers were generated
in the U.S.; of that amount, approximately one third were recycled and the remainder were
combusted or landfilled (United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). By comparison,
the recycling rate for deposit eligible glass containers in 2015 was 60% higher than the rate for
9 of 64
non-deposit glass containers. Similarly, the recycling rate for glass containers in general was
40% higher in states with a bottle bill compared to states without a bottle bill. This strongly
suggests that the incorporation of a bottle bill significantly increases glass container recycling
rates , which aligns with previously reported findings.
Glass Deposit Containers (U.S.) 72%
Total Glass (Deposit States) 65%
Total Glass Produced (U.S.) 26%
Total Glass (Non-Deposit States) 25%
Glass Non-Deposit Containers (U.S.) 12%
Figure 1 - U.S. Glass Recycling Rates by Category of Glass. Data from (United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 2018), (Container Recycling Institute, 2017), and (Container Recycling Institute,
2013).
There are ten states in the U.S. that currently have bottle bills including: California, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont (Container
Recycling Institute, 2019). Figure 2 shows the ten bottle bill states and the containers that are
currently included under each of the respective laws. As shown, each of the ten state’s bottle
bills includes beer,1 malt,2 and carbonated soft drinks. Eight out of ten states include wine
products3, seven out of ten states include bottled water, and four out of ten states include all non-
1
Beer- any fermented beverages made from malt, wholly or in part, or from any substitute therefor.
2
Malt beverages- includes any beverage obtained by the alcoholic fermentation or infusion or decoction of barley, malt, hops, or other
wholesome grain or cereal and water including, but not limited to, ale, stout, or malt liquor.
3
Wine products- means a beverage containing wine to which is added concentrated or un-concentrated juice, flavoring material,
water, citric acid, sugar, and carbon dioxide, and containing not more than 6% alcohol by volume, to which nothing other than such
wine has been added to increase the alcoholic content of such beverage
10 of 64
alcoholic beverage containers—except for those containing dairy—as redeemable containers.
Three states include liquor and two include wine. In Figure 2, the states are displayed in order of
increasing redemption rate4, with the lowest percentage on the left (i.e., Connecticut), and the
highest on the right (i.e., Michigan). The year that each bottle bill was established is noted in
parentheses in the axis labels (e.g., the bottle bill program in Connecticut was established in
1978).
Beer (10) Malt (10) Soft Drinks (10)

Wine Product (8) Bottled Water (7) Non-Alcoholic (excl. milk) (4)
Liquor (3) Wine (2)
Figure 2 – Redeemable (Bottle Bill) Containers Accepted by State.

Data from (California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery, 2019), (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2019), (Container
Recycling Institute, 2016), (Container Recycling Institute, 2019).
Redemption rate and the deposit values by state are shown in Figure 3. Half of the bottle bill
states—Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and Iowa—have one set deposit amount
of five cents per container. These same states report redemption rates that range from 50% to
65%. In contrast, four states—Oregon, Vermont, California, and Maine—have variable deposit
amounts ranging from two cents to a maximum of fifteen cents based on the container type.
These same states report higher redemption rates ranging from 73% to 84%. Finally, one state,
Michigan, maintains a set deposit value of ten (10) cents per container and reports the highest
4
Redemption rate – the percentage of redeemable containers that are returned for a deposit
11 of 64
redemption rate of 89%. These findings suggest that higher deposit values result in higher
redemption rates, which also aligns with previous findings reported by the Container Recycling
Institute (CRI) (Collins, 2019).
100% 16
15
90%
Deposit Container Redemption Rate (%)
14
80% 13
12
Deposit Value (in cents)

70% 11
10
60%
9
50% 8
7
40%
6
30% 5
4
20% 3
2
10%
1
0% 0
Redemption Rate Deposit (standard)

Deposit (liquor and/or wine) Deposit (refillable)
Figure 3 – Redemption Rate and Deposit Values by State.

Data from (Container Recycling Institute, 2019).
Figure 4 shows the allocation of unredeemed deposits. Connecticut and Massachusetts allocate
100% of unredeemed deposits to the state general fund. Conversely, Iowa, Maine, Oregon, and
Vermont allocate 100% of unredeemed deposits to distributors and/or bottlers. Michigan and
New York take a slightly different approach- each state divides the value of unredeemed deposits
between the state and either retailers or distributors. In the case of the former, Michigan allocates
75% of unredeemed deposits to state environmental programs and 25% to retailers. In the case
of the latter, New York allocates 80% of unredeemed deposits to the state general fund and
environmental protection fund, and 20% to distributors (Container Recycling Institute, 2019). The
12 of 64
two states that allocate the unredeemed deposits exclusively to the state general fund
(Connecticut and Massachusetts) have the lowest redemption rate and include the least number
of container types in the program. In contrast, Maine also allocates unredeemed deposits to the
state but has the second highest redemption rate at 84% and includes the most beverages in the
program. Therefore, it is not apparent from these findings if the allocation of unredeemed deposits
impacts the redemption rates of each of the programs.
Split Allocation Between

State and Distributor or
20% Retailer
30%
CT, MA State Bottle Bill Program

ME, MI, NY
IA, OR,
VT
CA, HI Distributors and/or Bottlers
30% 20%
State General Fund
Figure 4 – Percent Allocation of Total Unredeemed Deposits from 10 Bottle Bill States. Data from (United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 2018), (Container Recycling Institute, 2017), (Container
Recycling Institute, 2013).
Alternative (Non-Bottle Bill) Legislative Approaches

There are other mechanisms, besides bottle bills, that are used to increase recycling rates. One
is through the use of a concept known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Whereas
bottle bills—which are sometimes considered to be a form of EPR—put the responsibility for
material recovery, treatment, and disposal on multiple stakeholders, EPR focuses accountability
for recovery of material on the manufacturer of the product. Under EPR programs, manufacturers
are mandated to take primary financial responsibility for the end of life management of the
products they produce. Specifically, this means shifting the financial and management
responsibility to the producer and away from the public. By tying financial burden of disposal
directly to the manufacturers of a product, EPR programs are also meant to improve
13 of 64
environmental impacts of a product lifecycle by encouraging producers to find alternatives to
traditional disposal, such as reuse, or designing for easier recycling.
Advocates of EPR cite the following rationales for its adoption:

 Higher recycling rates have been demonstrated for the products that are covered
 In the EU, the package recycling rate went from 47% in 1998 (prior to EPR adoption) to
65% in 2012 (The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment
(EUROPEN))
 The EPR program in British Columbia, Canada covers glass, plastic, metal, paper, and
other types of packaging material. The industry-run recycling organization, Recycle BC,
recovers approximately 78% of all packaging in the province and, of that amount, 87% is
recycled (Valiante, 2019) (Ma, 2019)
 Potentially lower costs for municipal recyclers, as difficult to recycle items are removed
from their programs
 Increased accountability for end of life packaging material management, as manufacturers
may be more incentivized to find solutions to reduce costs and ultimately environmental
impacts associated with packaging (OECD, n.d.)
 Increased material feedstock facilitates closed-loop manufacturing
Also known as Product Stewardship Programs, many states use EPR programs for products like
e-waste, paint, batteries, fluorescent lighting, mercury thermostats, and appliances containing
refrigerants. New York has adopted EPR programs for e-waste, rechargeable batteries, and
mercury thermostats but not for more general consumer product waste like beverage containers
(New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, n.d.). At present, Connecticut was
identified to be working toward an EPR program that would include most common consumer
recyclables (i.e., glass, boxboard, metal cans, PET) (Connecticut Department of Energy &
Environmental Protection, 2016). In California, recently introduced legislation (2019) proposes
EPR for single-use plastic products (California Product Stewardship Council, 2019). Hawaii
proposed a zero waste plan in 2009 that highlights the role and necessity of EPR but it has yet to
be fully implemented (County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management, n.d.) (Hawaii
Department of Health, n.d.). New York State has no such initiatives for beverage containers or
14 of 64
any other consumer recyclables (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
n.d.).
In addition to variation in the number and types of products subject to EPR across states, there
is also variation in the operation of an EPR program. The two most common ways differ in terms
of what entity is running the program. In one scenario, manufacturers run the program and
contract transporters and recyclers to recover material. In the second scenario, municipalities run
a recycling program and submit bills to a stewardship organization developed by the
manufacturers (Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2019). The
benefit of the former is that manufacturers are in control—they own the responsibility of collection,
separation, segregation, and marketing of recyclables. In this case, there is increased incentive
to control costs and identify solutions to packaging challenges at end of life. The benefit of the
latter is the ability to leverage existing infrastructure. However, there are a number of challenges
with municipally controlled programs: reduced incentive to control costs, impacts of contamination
are unknown, and marketing of recyclables remains the responsibility of the municipality.
Another approach being used by some states includes recycled content laws that require a
minimum amount of post-consumer content. For example, Oregon requires that glass containers
have 50% recycled content and California requires that glass containers must have 35% recycled
content (Spendelow & Gast, 2019).
Advanced disposal fees are another method of supporting material recovery and waste diversion.
Used in Hawaii, the glass advance disposal fee program requires manufacturers, importers, and
distributors of certain glass containers to pay 1.5-cents per unit. The fees raised are intended to
pay for county glass container collection programs. Examples of containers subject to the
advance disposal fee include milk, oils, sauces, and condiments (State of Hawaii, n.d.). Although
deposit beverage containers—including wine and liquor—are not subject to the advance disposal
fee, they are subject to a “deposit beverage container fee” which is payable by beverage
distributors (State of Hawaii, n.d.), (State of Hawaii, n.d.). The beverage container fee in Hawaii
is comparable to the handling fee assessed to Deposit Initiators in New York State.
15 of 64
Summary of Distribution System
In the United States, alcoholic beverages are distributed through what is known as the three-tier
system, generally comprised of (1) manufacturers/suppliers, (2) wholesalers, and (3) retailers
(Figure 6) (Park Street Imports, LLC, 2019). Entities operating within each tier require a specific
license to operate, and are responsible for certain duties to carry out the system of checks and
balances that the three tier system was designed to be. For example, Tier 1 entities
(manufacturers) sell to licensed importers, distributors and control boards, Tier 2 entities work
with federal and state governments and are responsible for ensuring that state and federal excise
taxes are collected correctly, and are the only group allowed to sell to licensed retailers. Licensed
retailers (Tier 3) sell beverages directly to consumers, and are responsible for ensuring state
sales taxes are properly paid, and alcohol is only sold to those of legal age.
Figure 5: Diagram of U.S. three tier system for alcohol distribution

(Park Street Imports, LLC, 2019)
Within this overarching three-tiered system, individual states are responsible for regulating the
sale and distribution of alcohol within their own states. The way in which states do this falls into
one of two broad categories: licensing and control. In licensing states, the state issues licenses
to the entities that will manufacture and sell alcoholic beverages, while in control states, the state
is involved in the actual distribution and/or sales of some or all alcoholic beverages (New York
State Liquor Authority, 2019). The majority of the states, including New York, have chosen to
regulate the sale of alcohol through licensing, however there are seventeen control states in the
16 of 64
U.S., with varying nuances surrounding what alcoholic beverages they control and how. It is
estimated that the U.S. has over 200 different regulatory frameworks for alcoholic beverage
companies to comply with (Park Street Imports, LLC, 2019). Most states operating under a control
model control only the sale of distilled spirits at the wholesale level, but in some cases wine and
beer sales are also controlled by the state at wholesale and/or retail levels through government
agencies themselves, or government operated stores or designated agents (National Alcohol
Beverage Control Association (NABCA), 2019). According to the National Alcohol Beverage
Control Association, control jurisdictions represent approximately 23% of distilled spirits sales and
a significantly smaller percentage of beer and wine sales in the United States.
Because retail locations for redeemable beverage containers are required to accept these
containers, another important aspect to the distribution system for alcoholic beverages in the
context of a bottle bill is the beverage point of sale. Individual states differ in where they allow
beer, wine and spirits to be sold, and that isn’t necessarily consistent with whether the state is a
licensing or control state. In New York State, the alcoholic beverage control law dictates that beer
is allowed to be sold in grocery stores, but that is not the case for wine and liquor, meaning the
network of retail locations that would be required to accept wine and liquor bottles for return would
be separate from the existing network currently accepting redeemable containers (New York State
Legislature, n.d.). Table 3 shows a summary of allowable points of sale, type of state (control vs.
license) as well as which alcoholic beverage containers are included in the respective bottle bills.
As was stated previously, Vermont, Iowa and Maine are the only three states currently accepting
wine and/or liquor bottles in their redemption systems, which is why they are shown in Table 3
alongside New York State for comparison purposes. All three of these states (VT, IA, ME) control
the sale of spirits at Tier 2 (wholesale/distribution), while VT and ME also control spirits sales at
Tier 3 (retail) as well. None of the three states control sales of beer or wine at any tier of the
distribution system. These findings do not seem to correlate with whether or not the state allows
the sale of these alcoholic beverages at grocery and/or convenience store locations vs. dedicated
wine/spirits stores. As shown in Table 3, Iowa and Maine both allow sales of beer wine and spirits
at grocery and/or convenience store locations while Vermont only does so for beer and wine.
17 of 64
Table 3: summary of relevant liquor laws by state
State Feature Beer Wine Spirits Notes
Included in bottle bill 
State controlled sales
NY
Sale allowed at grocery or

convenience stores
Included in bottle bill  
State controlled sales  State controls spirit sales
VT at wholesale/distribution
  (tier 2) and retail (tier 3)
convenience stores
Included in bottle bill   
State controlled sales  State controls spirits at
IA wholesale/distribution
   (tier 2) only
convenience stores
Included in bottle bill   
State controls spirit sales
State controlled sales 
ME at wholesale/distribution
   (tier 2) and retail (tier 3)
convenience stores
Note: Data from (StateLiquorLaws.com, 2019) and (National Alcohol Beverage Control
Association (NABCA), 2019).
Task 2. Identify and review all proposed NYS Bottle Bill expansion legislation from the
2019 New York State Legislative Session
Task 2 Methods
To accomplish this task, a search was first conducted on the New York State Senate and
Assembly websites in order to identify all proposed NYS Bottle Bill expansion legislation from the
2019 New York State Legislative Session (The New York State Senate, n.d.). Included under
“expansion” are amendments that:
 Expand the types of containers eligible for deposit (e.g., glass wine bottles)
 Expand the types of beverages eligible for deposit containers (e.g., wine and liquor)
 Change the handling fee associated with accepting container redemptions
 Address fraud prevention
 Address exemptions
 Provide financial incentives
This process produced 6 results, listed in Table 4 below:
18 of 64
Table 4 - Proposed NYS Bottle Bill Legislation - 2019
Bill Date Bill Introduced
A2660 / S5085 January 24, 2019 / April 8, 2019

A7388 / S860 April 29, 2019 / January 9, 2019
A5028 / S2129 February 6, 2019 / April 22, 2019
A3473 January 29, 2019
S2828 January 29, 2019
A6057 February 26, 2019
After identifying all bottle bill related legislation proposed in the 2019 legislative session, each
document was analyzed separately. Specifically, the underlying priority of each proposed bill, as
well as the specific amendments related to those priorities, was identified and summarized.
Task 2 Results
High-level Summary of Proposed Bills

A number of bills related to the NYS Bottle Bill were introduced in the New York State Assembly
and Senate between January and April of 2019. In general, the bills address two priorities:
 Increase the number of beverage container types eligible for the container deposit
program
 Improve the container deposit redemption process for all stakeholders
Specific amendments related to the first priority include:
 Add wine, liquor, distilled spirits, cider, and wine products to the list of deposit beverage
containers
 Phase in:
o Noncarbonated soft drinks, fruit and vegetable juices with less than 100% juice,
coffee, and tea
o Carbonated fruit beverages
There are 33 specific provisions related to the second priority, which fall into the following eight
categories:
 Redemption
 Fraud Prevention
19 of 64
 Reimbursement to Dealers
 Deposit Initiators
 Exemptions
 Tax Credits
 Post-Consumer Content
 Rules
Detailed Summary of Proposed Bills

A05028 / S02129
 Introduced in Assembly on February 6, 2019, this bill is meant to improve the NYS Bottle
Bill by expanding the number of beverages eligible for a 5-cent deposit and redemption –
AND– to improve the redemption process
 Specific amendments include the following:
o Beverage Containers Accepted
 Wine, liquor, distilled spirits, and cider
o Beverage Containers to be Phased In
 Noncarbonated: Soft drinks, fruit and vegetable juices with less than 100%
fruit or vegetable juice, coffee and tea
 Carbonated: Fruit beverages
o Reverse Vending Machines
 Allow for the use of alternative technology for container redemption
 Reverse vending machines may be audited by the State
o Define “state-specific UPC code”
 A product code and label unique to New York and states with a (compatible)
bottle bill
o Redemption
 Dealers must clearly post an expiration date for redemption receipts
 Dealers must redeem full refund value on receipt in absence of a posted
expiration date
 Increase the allowable distance from a dealer to a redemption center from
½ mile to 1 mile; this applies to dealers that limit the number of containers
accepted per visit, per redeemer, per day
20 of 64
o Deposit Initiators
 Deposit initiators and distributors must collect redeemed containers in a
timely manner and at reasonable times (as regulated); failure to do so is a
violation
 Increase handling fee paid to dealer or redemption center operator to 5-
cents per container
 Deposit initiators may require dealers to move or load pallets, skids, bags,
and/or containers of containers by, e.g., forklift when dealer has
appropriate equipment and staff available
o Re-Count Provision
 A re-count can be requested in the event of a discrepancy between the
count of the dealer or redemption center and the deposit initiator
o Post-Consumer Content Requirements
 Glass beverage containers: ≥ 35% (by 1/1/2022)
 Aluminum beverage containers: ≥ 35% (by 1/1/2025)
 PET beverage containers: ≥ 25% (by 1/1/2030)
 Content requirements may be reduced or waived based on technical
feasibility
o Refund Value Account
 Service charges on withdrawals should not exceed the maximum
authorized by the State
 Until 4/1/2025, deposit initiators using state-specific UPC codes can pay
the State 75% instead of 80% of the quarterly outstanding refund account
balance. This only applies to the refund value attributable to containers
with state-specific UPC codes. The remaining 25% account balance is the
property of the deposit initiator and can be withdrawn.
o Redemption Fraud
 Bottlers can use state-specific UPC codes
 No later than 10/1/2024 the commissioner of taxation and finance will
submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature detailing the
effectiveness of state-specific UPC codes on fraud.
21 of 64
 Deposit initiators will report on the use of state-specific UPC codes in terms
of percentage of products covered, methods used to prevent fraud, and
labeling changes.
o Rules and Regulations
 The commissioner can establish rules and regulations under three
additional sections: 27-1007, 27-1011, and 27-1012.
o Amendment Expiration
 As of 4/1/2021, the city of New York, Nassau county, and Suffolk county
will no longer be entitled to retain 25% of fines and penalties collected as
a result of enforcement of section 27-1005 (beverage containers can be
sold only if the deposit has been collected by a deposit initiator).
A02660 / S05085
 Introduced in Assembly on January 24, 2019 and in Senate on April 8, 2019, this bill is
meant to improve the NYS Bottle Bill by streamlining the deposit reimbursement process
for large volume dealers.
o Distributors may or may not reimburse dealers for the deposit value when dealers
purchase less than 100,000 cases per year
o Distributors must reimburse dealers for the deposit value when dealers purchase
100,000 or more cases per year
S00860* / A07388**
 Introduced in Senate on January 9, 2019, and in Assembly on April 29, 2019, this bill is
meant to provide exemptions from mandatory acceptance of containers based on
business footprint and licensure.
o Places of business less than 2,000 square feet
o Places of business less than 5,000 square feet AND licensed under agriculture
and markets law AND located not in a city of 1M+ population
o All other places of business are mandated to accept containers
*The Senate bill was read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the
Committee on Environmental Conservation
**The Assembly bill was read once and referred to the Committee on Environmental
Conservation, past where it did not advance.
22 of 64
A03473
 Introduced in Assembly on January 29, 2019, this bill provides a tax credit for bottling,
packaging, and labeling expenses of wineries, breweries, and distilleries.
o Breweries producing 65M gallons or less of beer per year, wineries, and distilleries
are eligible for a tax credit equal to the amount spent on bottling, packaging, and
labeling
o Tax credit can be applied up to the minimum fixed tax amount as given in Section
210, subdivision 1, paragraph d of the tax code (e.g., $25 for NY receipts up to
$100,000).
o Amount of credit that can’t be deducted in a given tax year can be carried over for
deduction from future tax year liability.
S02828
 Introduced in Assembly on January 29, 2019, this bill adds cider to the list of returnable
beverage containers.
o “Cider” is defined in Article 1, section 3, paragraph 7-b of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) law
While several of the six proposed bills drafted and proposed during the 2019 NYS Legislative
Session gained traction, none of them moved through committees to be passed into law this year.
Task 3. Gather anecdotal information from stakeholders
Task 3 Methods
Positions and input on the potential for including wine and liquor bottles as deposit items in the
NYS Bottle Bill were gathered in several ways: by finding and summarizing publicly posted
positions, through personal communication with stakeholders, and through feedback and
discussions had at stakeholder forums. Since publicly posted positions were all in response to a
proposed bill, and there was no proposed bill that included only the addition of wine and liquor
bottles, these positions were in most cases not specific to the sole prospect of adding wine and
liquor bottles to the list of redeemable containers. Rather, they were in reaction to all of the
components of the respective proposal. Through this method, NYSP2I identified the positions of
67 individual organizations to bill A5028/S02129, one component of which was to include wine
23 of 64
and liquor bottles as redeemable containers (a more detailed summary of bill A5028/S02129, as
well as the other related bills can be found in Task 2 Results section above). To supplement these
publicly-available findings, NYSP2I also compiled a list of relevant stakeholders (e.g., beverage
industry associations, municipal recyclers, glass product manufacturers, etc.) and conducted
focused outreach to many of the organizations identified, both to gather data and information they
were willing to make available, and to understand their general positions on the potential for
adding wine and liquor bottles to the NYS Bottle Bill. While NYSP2I did not receive any official
stances from these organizations (again because there was no specific proposal to react to), the
general stances by stakeholder group, including major concerns and/or points of support, were
summarized. NYSP2I also supported NYSDEC in hosting a series of three Glass Recycling
Stakeholder Meetings in Albany, New York City, and Rochester NY, throughout August and
September 2019. The list of invitees included beverage industry, municipal, and government
representatives, as well as environmental and advocacy groups, manufacturers, and private
businesses. This group of meetings was meant to foster discussion among stakeholders around
potential solutions for addressing glass recycling challenges. While NYS Bottle Bill expansion to
wine and liquor was not the sole focus of these discussions, the topic was discussed at each
meeting and NYSP2I was able to gather more stakeholder input on the subject through these
forums. In the summary below, feedback from stakeholders is split into two categories – feedback
on previously proposed bills to expand the NYS Bottle Bill (which included but were not limited to
including wine and liquor bottles), and feedback on the concept of including just wine and liquor
bottles in an expanded NYS Bottle Bill (which was not associated with a proposed bill).
Task 3 Results
Publicly-posted Feedback on Proposed Bills
Each of the publicly posted positons that were identified by NYSP2I were to Assembly bill 05028
and Senate bill 02129 (A05208/S02129), the components of which are summarized under Section
E, Task 2 above. The majority of the entities that provided public positions to bill A05208/S02129
were non-industry entities (60%), while the remaining 40% were some type of industry association
or business. As is displayed in Figure 6, the vast majority of both non-industry and recycling
industry stakeholders communicated support of the bill in their publicly posted memos. The
24 of 64
majority of beverage industry stakeholders communicated opposition. Looking closer at Figure
6, it is clear that within these broad categories (non-industry, recycling industry, beverage
industry), the positions of each subgroup are fairly consistent based on the dataset available. For
example, all of the redemption centers that provided public positions were in support of the bill
while the reverse is true of the beverage industry associations.
45
40
35
30
25
20 Support
15 Oppose
10
5
0
Redemption Recycler Association Beverage
Center Wholesale
Non-Industry Industry- Recycling Industry- Beverage
Figure 6: Summary of Publicly Posted Positions to Bills A5028/S02129 by Stakeholder Group. Data from
publicly posted memos - Appendix A.
Anecdotal Feedback on Wine and Liquor Inclusion in Bottle Bill by Stakeholder Group
The input gathered via personal communication and stakeholder meeting discussions supported
the general trends communicated through publicly posted position memos. The trends identified
are summarized below by stakeholder group. The summaries included below represent the
broad themes as a stakeholder group, not necessarily that of any one individual
organization or of NYSP2I.
 Wine and Liquor Industry Representatives – Oppose
o This would pose a significant financial burden on small wineries, distilleries and
wine and spirits retailers that many businesses could not financially withstand.
o The wine and liquor industries are one of the most regulated industries already,
adding additional costs to their business model is unfair. Over 50% of the cost of
spirts already go to pay a fee or tax.
25 of 64
o Many of the wine and liquor businesses are small independently owned
businesses and would have to individually navigate the process of setting up and
maintaining container return systems. They would not benefit from economies of
scale across multiple locations in the way that grocery stores or convenience
store chains can currently.
o Cost of square-footage required to manage container returns varies drastically
around the state and would unfairly burden dealers in urban locations. Many
locations simply do not have the extra space to accommodate storing containers.
o The increased cost of operations would be passed on to the consumer in the
form of higher prices.
o There are issues with fraud in the current system. If these issues aren’t
addressed before the bottle bill is expanded, the fraud will also expand.
o Bottle bills were first conceived before curbside recycling was widespread, and
to address litter problems. Now that most U.S. families have access to curbside
recycling, and wine and liquor bottles are not a major component of litter, these
containers shouldn’t be added to the NYS Bottle Bill.
 Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs)/ Recyclers – Support
o Glass recovery at MRFs, especially those receiving material from single-stream
recovery is difficult, and taxing on the recycling equipment. Glass at MRFs is
usually so contaminated with other materials it has no secondary use besides
daily cover at a landfill.
o Sending more glass through the redemption process and keeping it out of MRFs
would benefit many MRFs by:
 lowering operational costs associated with managing glass
 improving quality and therefore value of other recovered materials that
are often contaminated by glass fines
o Glass recovery is often subsidized by the revenue from recovered fibers, plastics
and metals. Therefore:
 Removing more glass from the MRF process would help MRFs manage
costs.
 If other plastic and metal containers were included in addition to wine and
liquor bottles, MRFs are not convinced that the lowered costs from less
glass would outweigh the loss of revenue from less plastics and metals.
That is, MRFs support the inclusion of most any glass container in the
bottle bill, but not containers of other materials.
 Glass Product Manufacturers – Support
o Broadly there is a use for more glass cullet, but with the caveat that it must be
supplied at a competitive price and specified quality.
26 of 64
o Glass cullet used in container manufacturing keeps energy costs down and
extends furnace life.
o A main limiting factor to using more recycled glass is price.
 Glass processed through the redemption system as opposed to MRFs is
of higher quality and typically lower cost due to the more limited
processing that has to happen to get it to required specifications.
 Redemption Centers – Support
o Increasing the number of types of redeemable containers would allow
redemption centers to accept larger volumes of materials, and receive the
handling fees associated with the additional containers. It would be an
opportunity for business expansion.
 If wine and liquor bottles are included in the bottle bill in the future, the
handling fee for these containers should be reevaluated and potentially
raised.
o Due to the wide variety of micro and craft and imported wines and liquors, it will
be important to have locations, such as redemption centers, which are not limited
in the type of container they accept.
o As opposed to MRF glass, a very high percentage of glass that is recovered
through the redemption process is used again in product manufacturing. Adding
wine and liquor bottles to the list of redeemable containers will increase the
recycling rate of this material.
 3rd Party Pick up Agents – Support
o Most wine and liquor containers would physically fit through existing reverse
vending machines, but there would need to be updates to the programming to
track the materials properly.
o Because of the large number of small and medium sized wine and liquor
businesses, pick up agents would have a larger number of pick up points with
potentially smaller than average volumes of material to pick up. To account for
this, pick up agents would need to set their prices to cover any inefficiencies.
This may cause financial burdens for small rural wine/liquor retail locations.
o Systems for consolidating material would be beneficial for the pick-up process to
increase the efficiency of the pick-up and keep costs down.
o There would likely be an adjustment period for 3rd party pick up agents to absorb
the additional material into their systems.
 Environmental Organizations – Support
o Inclusion of wine and liquor bottles in the NYS Bottle Bill will benefit municipal
recycling programs, reduce litter, increase recycling rates, and decrease
consumer confusion.
27 of 64
o Many environmental organizations would like to see other containers beyond
wine and liquor bottles included as well.
 There is consumer confusion about which containers are redeemable.
Including more containers in the NYS Bottle Bill will decrease confusion.
 Bottle bills have shown to increase recycling rates for the containers that
are covered.
 Municipal recycling programs are struggling to handle glass at their
facilities. Wine and liquor bottles are almost exclusively glass, and would
help ease burdens on municipal recycling systems if removed.
o Other states have implemented wine and liquor deposits and have seen
increased recycling rates because of it.
Task 4. Identify the scope of the potential expansion to wine and liquor bottles
Task 4 Methods
In order to understand the effect of an expansion of the NYS Bottle Bill to include wine and liquor
bottles, it is important to estimate the number of businesses, quantity of glass containers, and
number of recycling facilities potentially impacted by a bottle bill. For purposes of this analysis,
NYSP2I assumed that the structure of the current NYS Bottle Bill would remain the same, and
wine and liquor would simply be added to the definition of a “beverage” in the law.
NYSP2I leveraged partners that had access to relevant data to perform this analysis. The New
York State Liquor Authority (SLA), through the State’s Office of Information Technology Services,
provided NYSP2I with a list of active liquor licenses for both on-premises and off-premises sale,
distribution, or manufacturing of wine or liquor in New York. Information about building size and
sales volume were not readily available to the SLA and therefore were not included in this
analysis.
NYSP2I identified the total number of businesses affected from this list, utilizing the license
description to discriminate between affected and non-affected businesses. License types included
in the total are shown below in Table 5.
28 of 64
Table 5. Wine and Liquor License Types Included in Bottle Bill Expansion
Wholesale or Retail Type Class Description
Retail L 222 LIQUOR STORE
W 322 WINE STORE
RS 130 ROADSIDE FARM MARKET
Wholesale WW 303 WHOLESALE WINE
LL 203 WHOLESALE LIQUOR
WA 305 WINERY / FARM WINERY RETAIL
Wholesale - FW 302 FARM WINERY
Manufacturing DD 207 FARM DISTILLER "D"
DW 301 WINERY
DA 206 DISTILLER "A-1"
MW 307 MICRO WINERY
DB 205 DISTILLER "B-1"
DB 202 DISTILLER "B"
DC 204 DISTILLER "C"
FP 306 TEMPORARY WINERY/FARM WINERY
DA 201 DISTILLER "A"
Note: Data from (New York State Liquor Authority, 2019)
An estimate of wine and liquor containers covered came from New York State container data
provided by CRI (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017). This report contains estimated sales,
recycling and wasting data by container and packaging types for 2015. CRI draws from many
different sources to compile this report including the Beverage Marketing Corporation, the US
Environmental Protection Agency, and personal communication with appropriate state personnel,
among others. In communications with CRI, there is an updated version of the report to be
published before the end of 2019. At the time of writing this report, the latest data was not available
for purchase. It was noted during this study that the number of containers reported by the CRI
through sales data are higher than the number that were reported to be sold to the Department
of Taxation and Finance. Why this is the case was not investigated as part of this project.
Another piece considered in the scope of a potential bottle bill expansion was the number of
recycling facilities that would be affected by the removal of wine and liquor bottle glass from their
systems. To identify this number, NYSP2I obtained a dataset of the 2016 annual reporting data
for all permitted New York State recyclables handling and recovery facilities (RHRFs). Although
RHRFs are technically a type of material recovery facility (MRF), they are more commonly referred
29 of 64
to as MRFs. Registered and permitted RHRFs are required to report the type and amount of
material received, and recovered. Using this information NYSP2I identified all the RHRFs that
reported receiving and/or recovering or transferring glass. RHRFs do not report any further
granularity about the type of container glass received or recovered, so it was assumed that wine
and liquor bottles would be present in any mixed glass reported. There are over 30 unique
categories of material that RHRFs reported receiving in 2016. NYSP2I assumed the following
categories to include container glass and therefore wine and liquor bottles: commingled
containers, single stream, and container glass.
NYSP2I, with the help of NYSDEC also investigated whether there were any federal and/or NYS
laws that would present a conflict to an expansion of the NYS Bottle Bill to include wine and liquor
bottles. To complete this, NYSDEC staff spoke with personnel at the State Liquor Authority, and
consulted provisions of the NYS Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, publicly posted stakeholder
position papers, and the website of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the U.S.
Department of Treasury. While this examination resulted in several findings, there may be
additional laws that should be considered as this was not an exhaustive search.
Task 4 Results
Businesses Affected
If the NYS Bottle Bill were to include wine and liquor bottles as redeemable containers, businesses
may be affected in two main ways – by becoming either deposit initiators or dealers. As defined
in the Section A, dealers would constitute retail locations which sell wine, liquor, or both for off-
premises consumption. Deposit initiators are usually bottlers or distributors, but can also include
dealers who did not directly purchase product from a deposit initiator. In this case, the deposit
initiators are identified in Table 6 as wholesale or wholesale – manufacturing.
As shown in Table 6, as of August, 2019 when the SLA report was generated, there were 4,510
active licenses of wine and liquor businesses that would be either deposit initiators or dealers.
Among this list, there are 72 instances in which the same location holds more than one license,
30 of 64
(i.e., a winery holding both a farm winery and a winery license). Note that the totals shown in
Table 6 are an indicator of the licenses, not of the number of businesses.
It is important to note that the way the licenses are structured, there is no distinction between
wholesalers and manufacturers or retailers, which can act as deposit initiators as well as dealers.
Without access to this level of detail, Table 6 does not fully represent all initiators or dealers.
Additionally, there would be some number of businesses located outside of New York State that
act as deposit initiators, but would not be required to have a New York State license. Therefore,
these businesses are not included on the list of New York licensees nor included in the total
counts provided in Table 6.
Table 6. Wine and Liquor License Types with License Count Included in Bottle Bill Expansion
Wholesale or Retail Type Class Description License
Total
Retail L 222 LIQUOR STORE 3,284
W 322 WINE STORE 61
RS 130 ROADSIDE FARM MARKET 8
Retail Total 3,353
Wholesale WW 303 WHOLESALE WINE 249
LL 203 WHOLESALE LIQUOR 173
WA 305 WINERY / FARM WINERY RETAIL 10
Wholesale Total 432
Wholesale - FW 302 FARM WINERY 362
Manufacturing DD 207 FARM DISTILLER "D" 146
DW 301 WINERY 97
DA 206 DISTILLER "A-1" 63
MW 307 MICRO WINERY 23
DB 205 DISTILLER "B-1" 15
DB 202 DISTILLER "B" 6
DC 204 DISTILLER "C" 6
FP 306 TEMPORARY WINERY/FARM WINERY 6
DA 201 DISTILLER "A" 1
Wholesale - Manufacturing Total 725
Grand Total 4,510
Note: Data from (New York State Liquor Authority, 2019)
31 of 64
Containers Affected
According to the CRI’s 2015 Beverage Market Data Analysis, there were approximately 354M
glass wine and 134M glass liquor bottles sold in New York State in 2015; summarized in Table 7
(Container Recycling Institute, 2017). Although this data is a few years out of date, it is in indicator
of the scale and types of containers that would be covered under a bottle bill expansion to wine
and liquor bottles. There is no data describing the breakdown of sales between on-premises and
off-premises purchases. That being said, according to the State Liquor Authority’s list of active
licenses, approximately 13% of all licenses for wine and or liquor sales are for off-premises use.
If each license had equivalent sales volume, off-premises sales would account for 63.4M eligible
containers (New York State Liquor Authority, 2019).
Table 7. NY 2015 Beverage Sales by Beverage Type
Beverage Type Glass Bottle Units Sold Weight of Units Sold (tons)
Wine 354,279,555 219,129
Spirits (Liquor) 133,642,273 95,912
Total 487,921,829 315,041
Note: Data from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017)
Recycling Facilities Affected

Based on 2016 annual reporting to the NYSDEC, there are 206 Recyclable Handling and
Recovery Facilities (RHRFs) in New York State handling curbside recyclables, 164 of which, or
79%, handle container glass. It was therefore assumed that there are 164 RHRFs in NYS that
would be affected by the removal of a portion of curbside container glass in the form of wine and
liquor bottles. Of the 164 RHRFs identified, 97 of them simply transfer materials to other RHRFs,
while the remaining 67 do some level of material recovery and/or processing. Based on the
amount of materials received, recovered, and/or transferred, some RHRFs would be affected
more than others. Additional detail on this can be found in the NYSP2I report on the Current State
of Glass Recycling.
Federal and State Laws that May Impact a Bottle Bill Expansion
Existing Federal and New York State laws could impact an expansion of the bottle bill to include
wine and liquor bottles. On the state level, some provisions of the NYS Alcoholic Beverage
Control Law (ABCL) would likely need to be amended to allow wine and liquor “package stores,”
32 of 64
which sell wine and/or liquor at retail, to accept empty returnable containers from redeemers, pay
the refund value/deposit amount to redeemers of empty wine or liquor bottles, and store the empty
containers. These “package stores” are licensees with a “seven day license to sell liquor at retail
for consumption off the premises” pursuant to ABCL § 63 or a “seven day license to sell wine at
retail for consumption off the premises” pursuant to ABCL § 79. Licensees are limited as to what
they are allowed to do and cannot be engaged in any other business on the licensed premises,
except for the activities specifically listed in the applicable statutory provision. Specifically,
Section 63(4) for retail stores selling liquor and Section 79(3) for retail stores selling wine, would
need to be amended to list all the activities these stores would be required to perform under the
Bottle Bill.
Additionally, there are restrictions on the types of services a manufacturer or wholesaler may
render to any person licensed under the ABCL. Therefore, ABCL § 101(1)(c) would also likely
need to be amended to make it clear that manufacturers and/or wholesalers are allowed to provide
services to these package stores, as required under the Bottle Bill, picking up empty wine and
liquor bottles and paying the refund value/deposit amounts and applicable handling fees amounts.
With respect to federal laws, at least one trade group noted that if state-specific labeling was
made mandatory, there could be potential conflicts with federal labeling requirements for distilled
spirits, as required by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the U.S. Department of
Treasury.
Task 5. Complete a high-level cost / benefit analysis
Task 5 Methods and Results
Basic Parameters and Key Data

In order to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of expanding the NYS Bottle Bill to include glass wine
and liquor bottles, it is important to identify relevant stakeholders as well as potential currency
and container flows. The Definitions section at the beginning of this report outlines the key
terminology and definitions. There are several key terms representing parts of the bottle bill
system and specific stakeholders that are used throughout this report, which are outlined below.
Table 1 lists the major stakeholders, along with their definition and several examples of NYS
businesses that fall within that category. Table 2 summarizes key terms used in the discussion
33 of 64
and analysis of the bottle bill expansion. Additional terms are defined where necessary in their
respective sections.
Table 1 Table 1 includes the legal terminology used for relevant stakeholders, and Table 2 lists
explanations of key functions within the container deposit process. The additional data points
needed to estimate direct costs and benefits related to an expanded bottle bill are outlined in
Table 8 and Table 9, and include beverage sales and estimated recycling rates for liquor and
wine bottles (see Table 8), as well as estimated recycling rates for glass deposit vs. non-deposit
containers, current container deposit values, handling fees, and container collection costs (see
Table 9).
Table 8: Sales and Recycling Rates for Liquor and Wine in NYS - 2015
Sales (2015) Estimated Existing Recycling (2015)
Units Units Tons %
Liquor 133,642,273 15,737,687 11,295 12
Wine 354,279,555 41,719,889 25,805 12

Note: Data from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017)
Table 9: Current Deposit Container Recycling Rates + Fees

Description Value
Average Recycling Rate 75%
(glass deposit containers)
Average Recycling Rate 12%
(glass non-deposit containers)
Overall Redemption Rate 65%
Deposit Value $0.05
(per unit)
Handling Fee $0.035
(per unit)
Container Collection Fee $0.01*
(*estimated average cost per unit)
Deposit Logistics Fee $0.01*
(estimated cost per unit)
Unredeemed Deposits kept by NYS 80%
Unredeemed Deposits kept by Deposit Initiator 20%
Note: Data from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017), (Container Recycling Institute, 2016), (New
York State), (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal, 2019).
34 of 64
Direct Costs to Beverage Industry: Overview
This section provides an overview of the calculated costs by major stakeholder group. The next
section provides more detail on these costs.
There are two categories of costs and two primary stakeholder groups in the beverage industry
that would face direct costs as a result of an expanded NYS Bottle Bill. The relevant cost
categories are (1) ongoing (i.e., costs that stakeholders will be impacted by in perpetuity), and (2)
upfront (i.e., one-time expenses associated with becoming compliant with the requirements of an
expanded NYS Bottle Bill). The main stakeholders include Deposit Initiators, and Dealers.
Although bottlers are not always Deposit Initiators, they are included in the Deposit Initiator
section because they would incur some costs regardless of whether or not they are also a Deposit
Initiator.
The cost factors needed to understand the ongoing economic consequences of an expanded
NYS Bottle Bill are summarized in Table 10. These include the number of deposit containers
sold, handling fees, container collection and pick up fees, deposit value, labor, redemption rate,
and allocation of escheats from unredeemed deposit containers.
The cost factors needed to understand the upfront economic consequences of an expanded NYS
Bottle Bill are summarized in Table 11. These include operational systems required to accept,
pay, redeem, track, and report on bottle deposits, as well as bottle labeling requirements. Due to
the unavailability of data required to quantify them, upfront costs have not been calculated. They
have nevertheless been included because they are relevant to key stakeholders impacted by the
addition of glass wine and liquor containers to the NYS Bottle Bill.
Table 10 – NYS Bottle Bill Expansion Cost Factors (Ongoing)

Stakeholder(s)
Description Wine Liquor Notes
Impacted
Sales data is specific to wine and liquor
Bottles Sold
All 354,279,555 133,642,273 packaged in glass containers and sold in
(2015 sales units)
New York State in 2015.
Deposit Initiators
Handling Fee
Dealers 0.035 0.035 N/A
($ per unit)
35 of 64
Container
Collection Cost Deposit Initiators 0.01 0.01 N/A
($ per unit)
Container
Pickup Cost Dealers 0.01 0.01 N/A
($ per unit)
Deposit Initiators
Deposit Value New York State
0.05 0.05 N/A
($ per unit) Consumers
Calculated using hourly minimum wage

rates, minimum hours of redemption
Labor
Dealer 0.074 0.074 required per day by law, number of
($ per unit)
dealers, and proportion of wine and liquor
sales.
Redemption Deposit Initiators Redemption rate is for all deposit

Rate Dealers 65% 65% containers (i.e., glass, plastic, aluminum) in
(NYS overall) New York State New York State for the year 2017.
Unredeemed
Deposit Initiators are entitled to 20% of
Deposits to Deposit Initiators 20% 20%
unredeemed deposits.
Deposit Initiator
Unredeemed NYS is entitled to 80% of unredeemed

New York State 80% 80%
Deposits to NYS deposits.
Note: Data from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017), (New York State), (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal,
2019), (New York State, n.d.), (New York State Liquor Authority, 2019).
Table 11 - NYS Bottle Bill Expansion Cost Factors (Upfront)

Stakeholder(s)
Description Notes
Impacted
Deposit containers must meet requirements stipulated in the NYS
Bottle Bill, such as indicating the refund value and the words "New
York" or the letters "NY". Some proposed NYS Bottle Bill
Label update Bottler
amendments also require an NYS-specific UPC code and/or include
an incentive to use an NYS-specific UPC code.
Dealers are required to put into place systems and pay transaction
costs related to:
 Paying and tracking deposit values for each container
Deposit
Dealer purchased for resale
logistics
 Collecting and tracking deposit values paid by consumers
 Refunding and tracking deposits for redeemed deposit
containers
36 of 64
Deposit initiators are required to put into place systems, and pay
transaction costs, related to:
 Collecting and tracking deposit values paid by distributors
and/or dealers
Deposit
Deposit Initiator  Maintaining a separate bank account for deposit values
logistics
 Reporting deposits paid and redeemed on a quarterly basis
 Transferring 80% of unredeemed deposits to NYS on a
quarterly basis
Note: Data from (New York State)
Of the cost factors described in Table 10, there are 5 that are most relevant: container pickup
fees, container collection fees, handling fees, labor, and unredeemed deposits. Table 12 provides
a summary of these 5 cost factors by stakeholder assuming that the current deposit container
redemption rate of 65% would apply for wine and liquor bottles.
Table 12 - NYS Bottle Bill Expansion Costs (Ongoing) by Stakeholder with 65% Redemption Rate
FEES REVENUE Wine Liquor Sub-Total

Stakeholder Description
($/cont.) ($/cont.) (2015 sales) (2015 sales) (2015 sales)
Deposit
Handling fee (0.035) (8,059,860) (3,040,362) (11,100,222)
Initiator
Container
(0.01) (2,302,817) (868,675) (3,171,492)
pickup
Unredeemed
0.05 1,239,978 467,748 1,707,726
deposits - 20%
Deposit Initiator Total: (12,563,987)
Dealer Handling fee 0.035 8,059,860 3,040,362 11,100,222
Container
(0.01) (2,302,817) (868,675) (3,171,492)
collection
Labor (0.074) (26,187,339) (9,878,457) (36,065,796)
Dealer Total: (28,137,066)
New York Unredeemed
State deposits - 80% 0.05 4,959,914 1,870,992 6,830,906
New York State Total: 6,830,906
Industry Total: (40,701,053)
Note: Data for fees and revenue from (New York State), and data for sales from (The Container Recycling
Institute, 2017).
Because the ongoing costs associated with an expanded NYS Bottle Bill are incurred on a per
unit basis, the redemption rate directly impacts total cost to stakeholders. For this reason, Table
37 of 64
13 shows estimated ongoing costs based on four different redemption rates. The 12% rate
corresponds to the current estimated recycling rate for glass wine and liquor bottles nationally.
The 65% rate is the baseline used in the initial cost analysis in Table 12. The 75% rate
corresponds to the current estimated recycling rate for deposit containers (this rate represents
the percentage of deposit containers that are either redeemed or disposed of via curbside
recycling). The fourth scenario assumes the best case scenario of a 100% redemption rate.
Table 13 - NYS Bottle Bill Expansion Costs (Ongoing) by Stakeholder and Redemption Rate
Redemption Rate
Stakeholder 12% 65% 75% 100%
Deposit Initiator $1,658,934 ($12,563,987) ($15,247,557) ($21,956,482)
Dealer ($34,602,031) ($28,137,066) ($26,917,262) ($23,867,750)
New York State $17,174,848 $6,830,906 $4,879,218 $0
Note: Data for redemption rates from (Container Recycling Institute, 2017), (Container Recycling Institute,
n.d.), data for number of containers sold from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017).
At each redemption rate, the proportion of the cost impact changes for each stakeholder. As the
redemption rate increases, the Deposit Initiator’s cost increases and the Dealer’s cost decreases.
New York State’s revenue from unredeemed containers decreases as the redemption rate
increases. These trends, also depicted in Figure 7 highlight two things. First, the cost impact of
an expanded NYS Bottle Bill varies significantly between stakeholders. Second, there is a
financial disincentive from the perspective of 2 of the 3 stakeholders included in Table 13, Deposit
Initiators and New York State, to increase redemption rates. Dealers stand to gain incrementally
as redemption rates increase, but their costs are still substantial. It has been shown that recycling
rates increase for containers that are eligible for deposit. However, it remains that the underlying
framework of the bottle bill financially disincentives two main stakeholder groups from increasing
redemption rates.
38 of 64
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
Cost
12% 65% 75% 100%
($10,000,000)
($20,000,000)
($30,000,000)
Redemption Rate
Deposit Initiator Dealer New York State
Figure 7 - NYS Bottle Bill Expansion Ongoing Costs by Stakeholder and Redemption Rate. (Container
Recycling Institute, 2017), (Container Recycling Institute, n.d.), data for number of containers sold from
(The Container Recycling Institute, 2017).
Direct Costs & Benefits to Beverage Industry by Stakeholder

This section explains in more detail, and provides context for, the specific costs and benefits, to
Deposit Initiators and Dealers should glass wine and liquor bottles be added to the NYS Bottle
Bill.
Deposit Initiators
Ongoing Costs
Deposit Initiators would be faced with two main sources of increased, ongoing costs: deposit
container handling fees and deposit container pickup fees.
Deposit Initiators are currently required to pay a 3.5-cent handling fee for each deposit-eligible
container that they produce and that is returned for deposit redemption (no fee is paid for
unredeemed containers) (New York State). This fee is payable to the Dealer or Redemption
Center redeeming the containers and is meant to cover the cost of collecting, sorting, and
39 of 64
packaging empty beverage containers prior to collection by the Deposit Initiator (New York State).
Table 14 shows estimated annual handling fees by four redemption rates, 12%, 65%, 75%, and
100%. These rates correspond to the estimated recycling rate for non-deposit containers (12%),
the overall deposit container redemption rate in NYS (65%), the average recycling rate for deposit
containers in NYS (75%), and the hypothetical scenario in which all deposit containers are
returned for redemption (100%). (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017) (Container Recycling
Institute, 2016).
Table 14 - Estimated Deposit Container Handling Fees by Redemption Rate
Bottles 12% 65% 75% 100%

Sold Redemption Redemption Redemption Redemption
Dealer -OR-
Deposit
Wine 354,279,555 $1,487,974 $8,059,860 $9,299,838 $12,399,784 Redemption
Initiator
Center
$
Liquor 133,642,273 $561,298 $3,040,362 $3,508,110 $4,677,480 $
TOTAL 487,921,828 $2,049,272 $11,100,222 $12,807,948 $17,077,264

Note: Data from for redemption rates from (Container Recycling Institute, 2017), (Container Recycling
Institute, n.d.), data for number of containers sold from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017).
Deposit Initiators are also responsible for devising and maintaining a retrieval system for empty
returned containers prior to the sale of containers in New York State. This can be accomplished
through a 3rd Party Agent, or it can be done by the Deposit Initiator directly. When a 3rd Party
Agent is engaged to manage returned deposit container pickup, the Deposit Initiator is not directly
involved in the collection process. Instead, the 3rd Party Pickup Agent (e.g., TOMRA, Envipco),
manages the process and charges the Deposit Initiator a fee. Pickup fees are dependent on
factors including distance, size, and container volume but, on average, they are estimated at
approximately 1-cent per container as shown in Table 15 (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal, 2019). Due
to the lack of available and relevant data, the cost associated with self-managed pickup costs was
not included in the analysis of container pickup fees. Although a self-managed pickup process
likely includes many of the same functionalities as 3rd party pickup processes (e.g., trucks, fuel,
labor, boxes), the cost is a factor of things like container volume, required frequency of pickup,
distance of Dealer locations from Deposit Initiator, and number of Dealers requiring container
pickup, all of which may vary widely across Dealers and was not accessible information for this
study.
40 of 64
Table 15 - Estimated Deposit Container Pickup Fees by Redemption Rate
Bottles 12% 65% 75% 100%

3rd
Deposit
Party
Initiator Wine 354,279,555 $425,135 $2,302,817 $2,657,097 $3,542,796 Agent
$
$
Liquor 133,642,273 $160,371 $868,675 $1,002,317 $1,336,423
TOTAL 487,921,828 $585,506 $3,171,492 $3,659,414 $4,879,218

Deposit Initiators pay handling and pickup fees but they are also eligible for indirect revenue from
unclaimed deposits. Dealers pay 5-cents per unit for each deposit container purchased from a
Deposit Initiator. The deposit value is retained by the Deposit Initiator in a separate bank account
until one of two things happen. In the first scenario, the Deposit Initiator repays the 5-cent deposit
plus a 3.5-cent handling fee per unit for each deposit container redeemed and returned to the
redeeming Dealer. In the second scenario, the number of deposits received by the Deposit
Initiator is reconciled with the number of redemptions collected by the Deposit Initiator’s Dealers.
Whenever fewer containers are redeemed than are sold there is a surplus of paid deposits.
Deposit Initiators are entitled to retain 20% of any quarterly deposit surplus value, and the
remaining 80% becomes property of New York State. Any value retained by the Deposit Initiator
from the quarterly reconciliation serves as a cost offset to the mandated handling and pickup fees.
Table 16 shows the hypothetical annual deposit values paid by Dealers to Deposit Initiators by
beverage type using 2015 sales data for New York State (The Container Recycling Institute,
2017). Table 17 shows the potential value of retained deposits based on container type and
redemption rate. Assuming consistent sales volumes, Table 17 shows how much of the
unclaimed deposits would be retained by the Deposit Initiator and how much would become
property of New York State.
Table 16 – Hypothetical Value of Deposits Paid Based on 2015 Container Sales Data - 5-cents per Unit
Bottles Sold Amount ($)
Wine 354,279,555 $17,713,978
Liquor 133,642,273 $6,682,114
TOTAL 487,921,828 $24,396,092
Note: Data from data for number of containers sold from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017).
41 of 64
Table 17 - Unredeemed Deposit Value by Redemption Rate
Unredeemed Container Value
Bottles Sold 12% 65% 75% 100%
Redemption Redemption Redemption Redemption
Wine $15,588,300 $6,199,892 $4,428,494 $0
354,279,555
Liquor $5,880,260 $2,338,740 $1,670,528 $0
133,642,273
TOTAL $21,468,560 $8,538,632 $6,099,023 $0
487,921,828
Table 18 - Indirect Revenue from Unredeemed Deposits by Redemption Rate and Stakeholder
Redemption Deposit Amount to

Total
Rate Initiator (20%) NYS (80%)
12% $4,293,712 $17,174,848 $21,468,560

65% $1,707,726 $6,830,906 $8,538,632
75% $1,219,805 $4,879,218 $6,099,023
Institute, n.d.), data for number of containers sold from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017), data for
allocation of unredeemed deposits from (New York State).
Upfront Costs
Upfront costs that deposit initiators would incur would depend on the type of business
(manufacturer, distributor, etc.) that was the deposit initiator. Several upfront costs are described
in Table 11. In the cases where the deposit initiator is the bottler of the wine and/or liquor, the
bottlers would also be subject to costs associated with universal product codes (UPCs) and labels.
In New York State, UPCs are not required by law. However, UPCs that are specific to New York
State are used as a means of preventing redemption fraud. Most importantly, Dealers with 10 or
more locations are required to use reverse vending machines (RVMs) to process redemptions,
but RVMs can only process deposit containers with a UPC. Because Dealers are required to
redeem all deposit containers that they sell, products without UPCs would either not be eligible
for sale by Dealers with 10 or more locations, or those Dealers would also have to use a manual
redemption process in addition to the RVMs. For these reasons, Bottlers of wine and liquor are
likely to choose to incur the cost of updating and/or revising the UPCs for products packaged in
deposit-eligible containers. Detailed cost information for updating UPCs and related labels is not
42 of 64
readily accessible. Although New York State has product brand labeling requirements, including
an annual registration process and related fees, additional brand label registration is only required
if there is a change in the brand or trade name, or the class or type of the alcoholic beverage.
Additional registration is not required for label modifications such as UPC revisions (State of New
York Liquor Authority, 2016).
Unless bottlers are also a deposit initiator, there are no direct economic benefits for Bottlers
associated with an expanded NYS Bottle Bill.
Dealers
Dealers would be faced with two main sources of increased, direct cost: deposit processing
logistics and deposit container collection.
Ongoing Costs
As a condition of offering for sale beverages bottled in deposit containers, Dealers are required
to perform three actions. First, they must pay the deposit value (currently 5-cents) for each
container purchased from the Deposit Initiator. Second, Dealers must collect from the consumer
the deposit value for each container purchased. Third, the Dealer is required to accept eligible
containers for redemption and refund the deposit value for returned containers to the consumer.
In the case of the latter, dealers are only required to accept for redemption the brands, varieties,
and sizes of deposit containers that they offer for sale. The value of the deposits that would need
to be paid by wine and liquor dealers was estimated using sales data.
Deposit Processing Logistics

The first two Dealer requirements (paying the deposit value to the Deposit Initiator and collecting
the deposit value from the consumer), are referred to in this report as deposit processing logistics.
The transaction costs related to these functions are not readily calculable within the scope of this
report. Each of these actions requires a data collection system that can also be used to generate
reports and verify redemption obligations based on the specific deposit containers that a given
Dealer is required to accept. The level of sophistication in data collection could vary from manual
to highly automated and, although some of this functionality may be included in RVM service
43 of 64
agreements for which fees can be estimated, not all required actions can be (e.g., paying the
initial deposit and collecting deposits from consumers).
Deposit Container Collection

Dealers are required to establish and maintain a process for collecting deposit containers. They
are also responsible for the cost of the collection system (i.e., deposit container collection fees),
the cost of labor to facilitate redemption and assist redeemers on a day-to-day basis, and the cost
of physical space needed to collect, sort, and store containers prior to pick up by the Deposit
Initiator. The collection system can range from a completely manual process to an almost entirely
automated one using reverse vending machines (RVMs). Costs associated with the use of RVMs
(such as leasing) are estimated at approximately 1-cent per container (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal,
2019). Because specific costs are difficult to quantify for manual collection systems, for the
purposes of this report deposit container fees are estimated based on the 1-cent estimate as
shown in Table 19.
Table 19 - Deposit Container Collection Costs
Bottles 12% 65% 75% 100%

3rd
Deposit
Party
Initiator Wine 354,279,555 $425,135 $2,302,817 $2,657,097 $3,542,796 Agent
$
$
Liquor 133,642,273 $160,371 $868,675 $1,002,317 $1,336,423
TOTAL 487,921,828 $585,506 $3,171,492 $3,659,414 $4,879,218

The collection of containers and redemption of deposits requires labor whether a manual or
automated system is used. In the case of a manual process, adequate staff must be made
available to facilitate efficient container acceptance and deposit redemption. In the case of an
automated process, adequate staff must be made available to empty RVMs, troubleshoot
equipment problems encountered by Redeemers, and process deposit redemptions. Under
certain exemptions, a dealer is allowed have staff available to accepting returned containers for
a minimum of two hours per day. In all other cases a dealer is required to be available anytime
they are open except the first and last hour of business (New York State). The two hour per day
minimum was used to arrive at a conservative estimate for labor costs, but most businesses would
44 of 64
incur higher costs than what is included in the analysis. Specific total costs are dependent on
deposit container sales and redemption volume, but Table 20 provides a lower-end estimate of
labor costs, as in most cases a dealer would use more than 2 hours of labor to comply adequately
with their requirements (New York State Department of Labor, n.d.) (New York State) (New York
State Liquor Authority, 2019).
Table 20 - Estimated Redemption Labor Costs (labor rates effective 12/31/2019)
Total
Labor Labor Cost per
Cost per # of Annual
Location Rate Hours Container
Dealer Dealers Cost to
($/hour) per Day (average)
Industry
NYC $15.00 2 $10,950 981 $0.08 $10,741,950
Long Island &
$13.00 2 $9,490 205 $0.08 $1,945,450
Westchester
Remainder of NYS $11.80 2 $8,614 2,714 $0.07 $23,378,396
TOTAL: 3,900 $0.07 $36,065,796
Note: Data for labor rates from (New York State Department of Labor, n.d.), data for labor hours per day
from (New York State), and number of Dealers from (New York State Liquor Authority, 2019).
As discussed in Task 4, the number of Dealers impacted by an expanded NYS Bottle Bill was
estimated from a list of currently active liquor licenses in New York State (New York State Liquor
Authority, 2019). Because Dealers consist primarily of retail locations such as liquor stores and
wine stores, the bulk of the licenses held by Dealers fall into the retail license category. However,
the legal definition of a Dealer is not retail-specific. Rather, it states that a Dealer is “every person,
firm or corporation who engages in the sale of beverages in beverage containers to a consumer
for off premises consumption” (New York State). Therefore, in order to derive a more complete
and accurate number of Dealers, non-retail licensees authorized to sell wine or liquor for off
premises consumption were included in the count. A total of 5 license classes from the wholesale
and wholesale-manufacturing categories allow wine and spirit manufacturers to sell directly to the
consumer (New York State Liquor Authority, 2019). These include:
 WA-305 Winery / Farm Winery Retail
 FW-302 Farm Winery
 DD-207 Farm Distiller “D”
 MW-307 Micro Winery
 FP-306 Temporary Winery / Farm Winery
45 of 64
Businesses in these license categories can act as both Deposit Initiator and Dealer. As Deposit
Initiator these licensees bottle beverages, and as Dealer these licensees sell their bottled
beverages for off-premises consumption (New York State). A typical example of this scenario is
a vineyard or winery that manufactures wine onsite and also sells bottles of wine directly to
consumers onsite, as may occur in any wine store. There is one more license class that allows
wholesalers and wholesale manufacturers to sell wine and spirits directly to consumers for off-
premises consumption, and that is CM-110 Combined Craft Manufacturer. This license type
allows the holder to combine two or more farm manufacturer licenses including FW-302 and DD-
207. However, these licenses are not added to the count of Dealers because holders of CM-110
also hold the underlying farm manufacturer license which allows for the sale of wine and spirits
for off-premises consumption (New York State Liquor Authority, n.d.).
Economic benefits for Dealers associated with the NYS Bottle Bill come in the form of handling
fees for Dealers. As previously discussed, Dealers are entitled to a 3.5-cent handling fee for each
returned deposit-eligible container redeemed by the Dealer and collected by the Deposit Initiator
(New York State). This fee is paid by the Deposit Initiator and is meant to cover the cost of
collecting, sorting, and packaging empty beverage containers prior to collection by the Deposit
Initiator (New York State). Table 14 shows estimated annual handling fees by four redemption
rates, 12%, 65%, 75%, and 100%. These rates correspond to the estimated recycling rate for
non-deposit containers (12%), the overall deposit container redemption rate in NYS (65%), the
average recycling rate for deposit containers in NYS (75%), and the best case scenario in which
all deposit containers are returned for redemption (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017)
(Container Recycling Institute, 2016).
Estimated Loss of Income to Recycling Programs

Private and municipal recyclers generate revenue by selling the materials that they recover
through primarily curbside recycling programs, but also drop off programs. These materials
include things such as fibers, metal, plastic, and glass. Expanding the existing NYS Bottle Bill to
include wine and liquor would divert glass material away from recyclers. In theory, this loss of
material would result in a corresponding loss in revenue. However, due to its relatively low value,
weight, susceptibility to breakage, and the contamination resulting from single stream material
recovery practices, glass costs more to process than it is able to be sold for. In most material
46 of 64
recovery facilities in New York State, the value of non-glass materials subsidize the recovery of
glass from single stream collection. From this perspective, the expanded NYS Bottle Bill—as it
pertains to wine and liquor only—will not cause a loss of revenue. It would, instead, provide a
source of cost reductions and offsets to recyclers. By diverting glass away from private and
municipal recovery facilities and recyclers, and into bottle bill redemption streams, collection and
processing costs incurred by private and municipal recyclers are likely to decrease in three ways:
curbside collection costs, glass scrap processing costs, and avoided disposal costs. This
information is summarized in Table 21, Table 22, and Table 23 respectively (The Container
Recycling Institute, 2017).
Using average curbside collection costs per ton by pick-up radius and an average curbside
recycling rate of 12%, NYSP2I calculated the cost associated with collecting glass wine and liquor
bottles. The tonnage was derived using annual sales data (i.e., the number of containers), and
the average weight of wine and liquor bottles. Assuming that the current cost of curbside
collection as estimated stays constant, and that at least 12% of liquor and wine bottles are
returned for deposit redemption, municipal and private recyclers would offset costs by
approximately $7M to $10M annually, shown in Table 21.
Table 21 - Curbside Collection Costs for Glass by Weight, at 12% Recovery Rate, and Service Area
($ MM)
Cost by Collection Radius

Annual Sales
(tons) Service Area 30 min radius 30-60 min radius
Cost $187.05/ton $278.42/ton
Liquor 95,912 $2,152,841 $3,204,458
Wine 219,129 $4,918,570 $7,321,188
Total 315,041 $7,071,410 $10,525,646
Note: Data for annual sales and container weight from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017), data for
service area cost from (Resource Recycling Systems (RRS), 2014).
According to data from the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), the current market demand for
glass does not command a price high enough to cover the processing costs (e.g., equipment
maintenance and replacement). Instead, curbside glass processing generates a net loss of $20/
ton (Collins, 2019). Combining this data point with the annual sales of wine and liquor bottled in
glass (by weight), and the estimated recycling rate for glass wine and liquor bottles, we can
47 of 64
estimate the cost savings associated with diverting wine and liquor bottles from curbside collection
streams (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017). An estimate of avoided glass wine and liquor
bottle processing costs is presented in Table 22. Based on a 12% diversion rate from curbside
recycling streams, adding wine and liquor bottles to the NYS Bottle Bill would save recycling
programs $756,098 annually.
Table 22 - Avoided Glass Processing Costs at 12% Redemption Rate ($20 / ton)
Bottles Sold (MM) Weight (tons) Avoided Processing Costs
Liquor 133,642,273 95,912 $230,189
Wine 354,279,555 219,129 $525,910
Total Glass 487,921,828 315,041 $756,098
Note: Data from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017).
Additional cost savings may take the form of avoided disposal costs. According to a 2017 glass
survey report published by NERC that collected data on MRF recycling pre- National Sword, only
54.02% of MRF glass in the northeast United States was sent to a glass processor or glass
container manufacturer (Remolador, 2018). The remaining 45.98% of total reported tonnage
went to end destinations including use as aggregate, use as road base aggregate, other beneficial
use, use as alternative daily cover, and landfill. If we apply this rate, 45.98%, to the annual sales
(by weight) of glass wine and liquor containers, and current tipping fee rates for NYS, we can
estimate the total potential avoided disposal costs (Environmental Research & Education
Foundation, 2017). Table 23 shows avoided disposal costs by redemption rate. If 12% of glass
wine and liquor bottles are redeemed, avoided costs are estimated to be approximately $1.1M
compared to $5.9M for 65% redemption, $6.8M for 75% redemption, and $9.1M for 100%
redemption.
Table 23 - Avoided Disposal Costs of Glass by Redemption Rate

Avoided
Weight of % MRF Tipping Avoided Avoided Avoided
Disposal
Bottles Bottles glass Fee Disposal Disposal Disposal
Costs
Sold Sold to (per Costs (12%) Costs (65%) Costs (75%)
(100%)
(tons) landfill ton) Redemption Redemption Redemption
Redemption
Wine 354,279,555 219,210 45.98% $62.83 $759,939 $4,116,335 $4,749,617 $6,332,823
Liquor 133,642,273 96,055 45.98% $62.83 $332,996 $1,803,728 $2,081,225 $2,774,966
TOTAL 487,921,828 315,266 $1,092,935 $5,920,063 $6,830,842 $9,107,789

Note: Data from (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017) and (The Recycling Partnership, 2017).
48 of 64
Possible Necessary Changes to Existing Redemption Collection and Processing Industry
The key stakeholders in the redemption collection and processing industry are Deposit Initiators,
Distributors, Dealers, Redemption Centers, and 3rd party agents that process material on behalf
of Dealers and Deposit Initiators.
In general, the redemption collection and processing industry would face the following changes:
 Increased demand for services due to an increase in deposit initiators and dealers
o Increased volume of containers to be processed and collected
o Addition of many small dealers would increase the number of pick up stops but
decrease operational efficiency
 Equipment compatibility due to new sizes and shapes of containers
o Currently, only 3% of containers can’t fit in existing RVMs (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal,
2019)
 This amounts to 14,637,655 containers based on 2015 sales data for New
York State (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017)
 Need for greater processing capacity
o TOMRA’s Farmington, NY facility is currently running 20 hours per day (Riegle,
Kelly, & O'Neal, 2019)
 Processing 20 tons/hr of amber glass
 Processing 17/18 tons/hr of flint glass
 Increased strain on glass crushing equipment due to additional weight and thickness of
wine and liquor bottles (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal, 2019).
 Required updates to RVM software for new products (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal, 2019)
o Updates to reporting system that compiles and sends information about deposit
containers received and deposits refunded to deposit initiators
 Increased consumer demand for redemption centers
o Redeemers wanting to return containers to one place versus multiple (e.g.,
Wegmans, liquor store, wine shop)
49 of 64
Impact to Dealers
Among redemption collection and processing stakeholders, dealers may face the greatest impact
due to the fact that establishments selling liquor and wine are not currently required to participate
in container deposits. Acceptance requirements for these dealers are outlined below.
Reverse Vending Machine (RVM) Acceptance Requirements

RVMs are automated machines that use laser scanners or other technology to read and identify
the universal product code (UPC) on containers. These machines are able to determine whether
or not a particular container can be redeemed. They also collect information about each container
accepted and issue a receipt to redeemers on the spot. This receipt can be exchanged for a cash
refund. Depending on the size of a Dealer’s place of business, the NYS Bottle Bill may require
the use of one or more RVMs; other Dealers may be exempt from the RVM requirement but are
still obligated to provide manual redemption services (New York State).
o Businesses with 10+ locations in NYS are required to use RVMs to accept and process
deposit containers. The number of RVMs required varies by square footage of the relevant
place of business.
o 40,000 – 60,000 SQ FT
 2+ RVMs
o 60,000 – 85,000 SQ FT
 3+ RVMs
o 85,000+ SQ FT
 4+ RVMs
o Those exempt from the RVM requirement include Dealers that:
o Sell beverage containers of 20 oz or less packaged in quantities fewer than 6
o Sell beverage containers and devote no more than 5% of its floor space to the
display and sale of consumer commodities5
o Obtain a waiver authorizing the use of alternative technology (must be able to
determine if containers are redeemable, provide fraud protections, accumulate
5 “Consumer commodities” shall mean the following, however packaged or contained: food, including all material,
solid, liquid or mixed, whether simple or compound, used or intended for consumption by human beings or domestic
animals normally kept as household pets and all substances or ingredients to be added thereto for any purpose; and
napkins, facial tissues, toilet tissues, foil wrapping, plastic wrapping, paper toweling, disposable plates; and
detergents, soaps and other cleansing agents; and non-prescription drugs, female hygiene products and toiletries
(The New York State Senate, n.d.).
50 of 64
information about containers redeemed, and issue legal tender or receipts that can
be exchanged for legal tender)
Non-RVM Acceptance Requirements

o Businesses not subject to RVM requirements that are 40,000+ SQ FT must have:
o A dedicated redemption area
o Staff to facilitate efficient acceptance and processing of redemptions
o At least 1 sign at each public entrance directing consumers to redemption area
Container Acceptance Limits

o Dealers can limit the number of containers accepted per person per day to 72 if…
o The dealer has a written agreement with a redemption center in the same county and
within ½ mile of business AND
o The dealer provides a 2-hour period per day during which up to 240 containers will be
accepted per person, per day AND
o The dealer’s primary business is the sale of food and beverages for off-premises
consumption AND
o The place of business is less than 10,000 SQ FT
Table 24: Summary of Presumed Required Changes by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder Legal Role Impact
Winery / Distillery Deposit Initiator  Register as a deposit initiator
 Establish process for initiating deposits
o Provide information on all containers eligible for
deposit to NYS
o Record keeping
o Quarterly reporting
o Refund value bank account
 Collect deposits from distributors / dealers directly or
through a 3rd party agent
 Pay handling fees on redeemed containers
 Update / revise all product labels
Winery / Distillery Dealer  Establish redemption process, area, and storage
Distributor Distributor  Logistics / pick up capacity

o Adding hundreds of small locations will increase
costs and decrease efficiency due to number of pick
up stops, miles travelled, etc.
51 of 64
o Adding pick up locations is scalable, but only if loads
are ¾ or more full (Riegle, Kelly, & O'Neal, 2019)
o Main impact here would be higher than current fees
for new, small scale dealers that might engage
TOMRA as pick up agent
3rd Party Agent N/A  Reprogram/update software on RVMs to accept different
(e.g., TOMRA) products
 Update databases for RVMs
 Currently unable to process containers over 2L
 Logistics / pick up capacity
o Adding hundreds of small locations will increase
costs and decrease efficiency due to number of pick
up stops, miles travelled, etc.
o Adding pick up locations is scalable, but only if loads
are ¾ or more full
o Main impact here would be higher than current fees
for new, small scale dealers that might engage
TOMRA as pick up agent
Liquor Store / Dealer  Establish redemption process, area, and storage
Bottle Shop
(e.g., Century
Liquor & Wines)
Liquor Store / Dealer  Establish redemption process, area, and storage

Bottle Shop
(e.g., Fort Hill
Liquor Store)
Consumer Redeemer  Pay deposit on wine and liquor

 Make multiple redemption stops when returning different
types of containers (e.g., wine bottle vs. beer bottle), unless
using a redemption center
Change in Recycling Rate and Quality

The change in recycling rate and quality of recovered material is an important part of
understanding the cost and benefits associated with a bottle bill. The Container Recycling Institute
(2017) report included derived curbside recycling values for glass wine and liquor bottles from
aggregated data from across the U.S. The report also included recycling rates for deposit
containers (includes deposit and non-deposit returned recycling, e.g., curbside).
Information about the change in quality came from several sources. Relevant data was gathered
from two reputable resources, Resource Recycling and Northeast Recycling Council (NERC).
52 of 64
Both organizations conducted surveys to understand the end destination of recycled glass from
the perspective of MRFs and glass processing facilities.
Change in Recycling Rate

Container Recycling Institute estimates a recycling rate of 11.8% for all non-deposit glass bottles
in New York, including wine and liquor (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017). In the event of
a bottle bill, CRI assumed the recycling rate for wine and liquor bottles would match the rate of
deposit containers from the Hawaii State Department of Health, which is 75% (The Container
Recycling Institute, 2017). As such, the change in recycling rate should roughly match the
redemption rate. Using the CRI data this would be a 63% change. As described above, the NYS
redemption rate for deposit containers is 65%. Given how close these numbers are to each other,
and without more information, it is reasonable to assume the change in recycling rate for liquor
and wine bottles should be close to 63% to 65%.
Change in Quality
As described in the above, the expected change in quality is based on a few surveys done of
MRFs and glass processing facilities. While neither study is New York State specific, the results
should shed light on the general trends that are applicable in New York.
The Northeast Recycling Council survey showed that, from a set of MRFs based in the northeast,
which accept from varying input streams, e.g., drop off, single stream, dual stream, etc., 54% of
received glass is sent to glass processing, 7.8% used as an aggregate or in a road base, 24%
was used as daily cover and 15% was landfilled (Remolador, 2018). As shown in Table 25, the
quality of the glass is dependent in large part on the source. Combining results from both datasets,
it is reasonable to assume that at most, roughly 1/3 (60% of 54%) of single stream glass coming
into MRFs go into glass bottles or fiber glass, 41% is used in low value applications, and the rest
is landfilled. With dual stream, the percentages are slightly better with close to 50% turned into
usable cullet, 36% used in low value applications, and the remainder landfilled. Based on this
data, one could expect the change in quality of recycled wine and liquor bottles to be somewhere
between the single and dual stream rates for the baseline and a 98% recovery for glass bottles
and fiber glass, 2% to low value applications, and a small remainder sent to landfill.
53 of 64
Table 25. Glass Recycling Destinations from Glass Processing Facilities
Destination
Source Stream Glass bottles/fiber Road base or landfill Landfilled (glass
Type glass (usable daily cover (glass fines and non-glass
cullet) fines) residue)*
Single Stream 60% 19% 21%
Dual Stream 90% 10%
Deposit 98% 2%
Data from: (Collins S. , 2012)
* While not stated in the report, it is reasonable to assume that there is still some small
fraction of glass fines and/or non-glass residue landfilled from the dual stream and deposit
glass source streams.
Task 6. Understand available capacity to use more recycled glass
Task 6 Method
To understand capacity for current users of recycled glass cullet from bottle bill containers,
NYSP2I identified and contacted several of the regional glass manufacturers as well as the Glass
Manufacturing Industry Council (GMIC) to discuss this topic. Of the six regional glass
manufacturers contacted, responses were received from four, as well as GMIC. The information
that NYSP2I was able to gather on available capacity on a facility-level was largely anecdotal, as
several manufactures were not willing or able to share numbers on their capacity. However, using
Container Recycling Institute datasets, and average values for current cullet use in glass
container manufacturing, NYSP2I also estimated the theoretical capacity of regional glass
container manufacturers to accept additional cullet in current operations. The factors used in this
estimation are listed in Table 26. First, NYSP2I applied the NYS redemption rate to the total weight
of redeemable glass containers sold to come up with the weight of glass cullet currently available
from NYS redeemable glass containers.
 421,707 tons (0.65) = 274,109 tons
It was then assumed that all of this material is being used at regional glass manufacturers
currently. By assuming that regional manufacturers are running their facilities with an average of
35% cullet (Gaustad, 2019), and 50% of that cullet is coming from redeemable containers,
NYSP2I next calculated the total amount of raw material used for container manufacturing
regionally and the unused potential for incorporating more cullet.
 35% (50%) = 17.5%
54 of 64
 (274,109 tons (100))/ 17.5 = 1,566,337 tons
 90% - 35% = 55%
 1,566,337 tons (0.55) = 861,485 tons
To account for uncertainty, a safety factor of 0.25 was applied to this theoretical capacity.
 861,485 tons – (861,485 tons (0.25)) = 646,114 tons
By comparing the total weight of glass wine and liquor bottles sold to this theoretical capacity,
NYSP2I was able to estimate whether or not the regional glass manufacturing facilities would
have capacity to accept the additional cullet produced from including wine and liquor bottles in
the NYS Bottle Bill.
 315,042 tons < 646,114 tons
Table 26: Factors and Assumptions Used in Estimating Theoretical Glass Manufacturing Capacity for
Cullet Regionally
Factor/ Assumption Description
421,707 tons Weight of redeemable glass container sold
annually in NYS
315,042 tons Weight of glass wine and liquor containers
sold annually in NYS
65% Redemption rate of redeemable containers
in NYS
35% Percent of cullet used by glass
manufacturers in U.S. for container
manufacturing
17.5% Percent of cullet used by glass
manufacturers sourced from bottle bill (50%
of 35%)
90% Theoretical maximum amount of cullet that
could be used for container manufacturing
Data from: (The Container Recycling Institute, 2017), (Gaustad, 2019)
Task 6 Results
In each of the conversations that NYSP2I had with glass manufacturers, the overarching
sentiment was the same– the need and capacity for more glass cullet exists, but with two major
caveats: quality and price of the cullet. In fact, the issue of sourcing quality, cost competitive cullet
is at the forefront of the glass manufacturing industry’s mind, as evidenced by the recently
published study on Cullet Supply Issues and Technology. This was a study commissioned by the
Glass Manufacturing Industry Council to explore ways in which more post-consumer cullet can
be recycled. Though many of the potential solutions outlined were technically oriented, bottle bill
55 of 64
programs were called out as an opportunity to increase glass recycling and provide more cullet
to glass manufacturers.
Use of glass cullet can significantly reduce consumption of raw material, extend furnace life and
save energy (Glass Packaging Institute, 2019). At the specified quality, glass cullet can be used
for up to 90% or more of raw material in new container manufacturing, and is used consistently
at these levels in some manufacturing plants in the EU. However, it is rare for glass plants in the
U.S., including in the NYS region to use cullet at such high percentages, in fact most are using a
percentage closer to 35%. This is simply because there is not enough quality cullet available at
competitive prices (Gaustad, 2019).
Although NYSP2I was not able to obtain data on capacity directly from regional glass
manufacturers, a theoretical maximum capacity was calculated based on container sales data
and industry averages. NYSP2I was able to estimate that the theoretical capacity for regional
glass manufacturing facilities to accept more cullet is more than 2X the total weight of cullet that
would be produced if all wine and liquor bottles sold in NYS were redeemed through the NYS
Bottle Bill. It is important to note that this analysis did not take into account color, quality or cost
of the additional cullet, which are critical components to determining whether or not manufacturers
would use the additional material if it were available.
F. Conclusions and Next Steps
This study succeeded in outlining high level implications of including wine and liquor bottles in the
NYS Bottle Bill. Based on the results of the study, it is clear that including wine and liquor bottles
in the NYS Bottle Bill would have widespread, but varied impacts on key stakeholders.
From an environmental standpoint, expanding the number of containers included in the bottle bill
would very likely increase recycling rates of these containers, relieve approximately 164 MRFs
from a portion of a low value, and difficult to manage material, and provide opportunity for nearly
315,000 tons of additional container glass to make its way through the redemption system where
it has a much higher likelihood of being used in new container manufacturing and other higher-
use recycling outlets. Initial estimates indicate that from a purely capacity-related standpoint,
56 of 64
regional glass manufacturers have capacity to use the amount of additional cullet that may be
made available if wine and liquor bottles were included in the deposit system.
From a beverage industry standpoint, several thousand New York State manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers of wine and liquor would incur significant costs by being required to
become either a deposit initiator or dealer for the first time. Many of these businesses are small
independently run enterprises that would incur these costs individually and not benefit from any
economies of scale that larger chain establishments might. It is estimated that the industry would
incur over $40 million dollars in ongoing direct costs, with additional significant upfront costs.
From a logistical standpoint, it seems that many of the reverse vending machines used are flexible
enough to be able to accept wine and liquor sized containers. However, because wine and liquor
sales are not allowed at grocery or convenience locations, the network of locations for wine and
liquor bottle returns, and therefore pick-ups (e.g., wine and spirits stores) are almost entirely
separate from the current network where beer, soft drink, and other containers are returned and
collected. This would, at least for a transition period, put a strain on 3rd party pick up agents to
be able to service this new network of pick up locations. Additionally, it is likely that these smaller
more dispersed pick up locations would experience higher prices to account for inefficiency of
servicing them.
While the study provided many important initial findings to help gauge the impacts of adding wine
and liquor bottles to the NYS Bottle Bill, it should be noted that there are several aspects of this
study that warrant further research and consideration before being able to decide whether or not
this is the best path forward for NYS, including but not limited to:
 Consumer willingness to return containers to a second set of locations (e.g., wine/liquor
stores vs. grocery stores), which could significantly impact redemption rates
 Capacity of 3rd party pick up agents and beneficiators to transport and clean additional
bottle bill glass
 Further research into the feasibility of other (non-bottle bill) options for NYS to increase
glass recycling (e.g., EPR, advanced disposal fee, etc.)
57 of 64
 More in-depth cost/benefit analysis that comprehends variability across business type,
size and location (rural vs. urban), and whether or not the additional cullet could be cost
competitive to raw material
 Investigating the possible underreporting apparent from the discrepancy between
Container Recycling Institute Sales data and that of the Department of Taxation and
Finance.
G. Appendix
Appendices are included as separate documents to this report.
H. References
Buklarewicz, P. J., Damas, L., Anthony, R., Flammer, R., Seldman, N., & Liss, G. (2009, March
14). Zero Waste Implementation Plan for the County of Hawai'i. Retrieved from
https://www.hawaiizerowaste.org/site-content/uploads/3-14-09-
Hawaii_Zero_Waste_Plan.doc.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery. (2019, May 10). Biannual Report of Beverage Container Sales, Returns,
Redemption, and Recycling Rates. Retrieved from
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/docs/cr/bevcontainer/rates/biannualrpt/2018julydec.pdf
California Product Stewardship Council. (2019). California Legislation. Retrieved from
https://www.calpsc.org/legislation
Casella. (2019, March 8). An Expanded Bottle Bill: Another Threat to Recycling. Retrieved from
Casella: https://www.casella.com/blog/expanded-bottle-bill
Collins, S. (2012, February). A Common Theme. Resource Recycling.
Collins, S. V. (2019, July 17). Bottle Bills - Benefits & Challenges. Retrieved from Container
Recycling Institute: https://nerc.org/documents/Webinars/Bottle%20Bills--
Benefits%20and%20Challenges/Bottle%20Bills%20Overview.pdf
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. (2016, December). What is
Producer Stewardship? Retrieved from Connecticut Department of Energy &
Environmental Protection: https://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2708&q=447190
58 of 64
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. (2019). CT Bottle Bill
Redemption Data. Retrieved from
https://www.ct.gov/deep/Lib/deep/reduce_reuse_recycle/bottles/bottle_bill_data_-
_thru_Q1_2019.pdf
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. (2019, May 21). Packaging
Extended Producer Responsibility - An Evolution In Receycling. Retrieved from
Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection:
http://nyfederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/pdf2019/40%20Metzner%20T.pdf
Container Recycling Institute. (2013). Deposit States Have Higher Beverage Container
Recycling Rates. Retrieved from Container Recycling Institute: http://www.container-
recycling.org/images/stories/BUfigures/figure-pngs-new/figure1.png
Container Recycling Institute. (2016). Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/assets/pdfs/legis/usa/Hawaii%20Deposit%20Beverage%20Cont
ainer%20program%20stats%20-%20FY06-
FY15%20updated%201816%20Updated%20.pdf
Container Recycling Institute. (2017). U.S. Recycling Rates by Deposit Status, 2015. Retrieved
from Container Recycling Institute: http://www.container-
recycling.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=199&Itemid=1155
Container Recycling Institute. (2019). All State Table. Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource
Guide: http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/additional-links
Container Recycling Institute. (2019, July 19). Bottle Bills - Benefits and Challenges.
Container Recycling Institute. (n.d.). Iowa. Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/iowa
Container Recycling Institute. (n.d.). Maine. Retrieved from Bottel Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/maine
Container Recycling Institute. (n.d.). Massachusetts. Retrieved from Botte Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/massachusetts
Container Recycling Institute. (n.d.). Michigan. Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/michigan
Container Recycling Institute. (n.d.). New York. Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/new-york
59 of 64
Container Recycling Institute. (n.d.). Oregon. Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/oregon
Container Recycling Institute. (n.d.). Vermont. Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/usa/vermont
Container Recycling Institute; Vermont Public Research Interest Group. (2013, February 28). A
Clean and Green Vermont: A Special Report on the Environmental and Economic
Benefits of Vermont's Bottle Bill. Retrieved from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/resources/pubs/CRI-VPIRG-A-Clean-and-Green-Vermont_2-28-
2013.pdf
County of Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management. (n.d.). Zero Waste. Retrieved
from Solid Waste Division & Recycling Section: https://www.hawaiizerowaste.org/zero-
waste/
Environmental Research & Education Foundation. (2017, April). Analysis of MSW Landfill
Tipping Fees. Retrieved from Environmental Research & Education Foundation:
https://erefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EREF-MSWLF-Tip-Fees-2017.pdf
Gaustad, G. (2019, August 15). Presentation at Alfred University. (NYSP2I, Interviewer)
Glass Packaging Institute. (2019). Glass Facts. Retrieved from Glass Packaging Institute:
http://www.gpi.org/recycling/glass-recycling-facts
Hawaii Department of Health. (n.d.). Hawaii Deposit Beverage Container Statistics. Retrieved
from Bottle Bill Resource Guide:
http://www.bottlebill.org/assets/pdfs/legis/usa/Hawaii%20Deposit%20Beverage%20Cont
ainer%20program%20stats%20-%20FY06-
FY15%20updated%201816%20Updated%20.pdf
Ma, K. (2019, July 31). Producers Key to Solving Plastic Pollution Problem. Retrieved from St.
Albert TODAY: https://www.stalberttoday.ca/local-news/producers-key-to-solving-plastic-
pollution-problem-1596035
National Alcohol Beverage Control Association (NABCA). (2019). Control State Directory and
Info. Retrieved from National Alcohol Beverage Control Association (NABCA):
https://www.nabca.org/control-state-directory-and-info
New York State. (n.d.). Article 27 - Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Refuse and Other
Solid Waste; Title 10 - Litter and Solid Waste Control. Retrieved from New York State
60 of 64
Environmental Conservation Law:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/rca2017.pdf
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2018, August 8). Third-Party
Systems and Related Companies. Retrieved from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation: https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/54799.html
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (n.d.). Product Stewardship.
Retrieved from Department of Environmental Stewardship:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/66746.html
New York State Department of Labor. (n.d.). Minimum Wage. Retrieved from Department of
Labor:
https://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/minwage.shtm
New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. (2016, January 11). Publication 574: New
York State Registered Distributors of Liquor and Wine. Retrieved from New York State
Department of Taxation and Finance:
https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2016/pubs/alcohol/pub574_116.pdf
New York State Legislature. (n.d.). Consolidated Laws. Retrieved from New York State
Legislature: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:
New York State Liquor Authority. (2014, June 24). Private Liquor Brand Label Registration
Application. Retrieved from New York State Liquor Authority:
https://sla.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2018/08/brand-label-private-liquor-071714.pdf
New York State Liquor Authority. (2014, June 24). Standard Wine Product/Wine Specialty/Low
Alcohol Wine Label Registration Application. Retrieved from New York State Liquor
Authority: https://sla.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2018/08/brand-label-standard-wp-la-
ws-062414.pdf
New York State Liquor Authority. (2019, September). Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
Retrieved from https://sla.ny.gov/alcoholic-beverage-control-law
New York State Liquor Authority. (2019, July 30). Liquor Authority Quarterly List of Active
Licenses API. Retrieved from Data.NY.gov: https://data.ny.gov/Economic-
Development/Liquor-Authority-Quarterly-List-of-Active-Licenses/wg8y-fzsj
New York State Liquor Authority. (2019, August 23). Standard Liquor Brand Label Registration .
Retrieved from State Liquor Authority:
61 of 64
https://sla.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2019/08/Brand%20Label%20Application%20S
tandard%20Liquor%208.23.19-.pdf
New York State Liquor Authority. (n.d.). Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing Licenses. Retrieved
from
https://www.businessexpress.ny.gov/app/answers/cms/a_id/2027/kw/Alcoholic%20Bever
age%20Manufacturer%20License
New York State Liquor Authority. (n.d.). Brand Label Registration. Retrieved from Liquor
Authority: https://sla.ny.gov/brand-label-registration
New York State. (n.d.). Minimum Wage. Retrieved from Department of Labor:
https://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/minwage.shtm
OECD. (n.d.). Extended Producer Responsibility. Retrieved from OECD:
https://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/extendedproducerresponsibility.htm
Park Street Imports, LLC. (2019). Alcoholic Beverage Industry: Three-Tier System. Retrieved
from Park Street: https://www.parkstreet.com/wine-spirits-industry-background/
Remolador, M. A. (2018, October). Northeast MRF Glass Survey. Retrieved from Northeast
Recycling Council (NERC):
https://nerc.org/documents/Glass/Northeast%20Recycling%20Council%20-
%20MRF%20Glass%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Resource Recycling Systems (RRS). (2014). Container Redemption System Optimization
Study.
Riegle, C., Kelly, J., & O'Neal, J. (2019, August 8). TOMRA site visit (Farmington, NY). (A.
Labuzetta, & G. Griffin, Interviewers)
Schultz, J. (2018, March 14). State Beverage Container Laws. Retrieved from National
Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-
resources/state-beverage-container-laws.aspx
Spendelow, P., & Gast, J. (2019, May 10). Market Development. Retrieved from Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality:
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/recycling/Documents/recmarkdev.pdf
State of Hawaii. (n.d.). F.A.Q. Hawaii Advance Disposal Fee. Retrieved from Department of
Health Solid Hazardous Waste Branch:
http://health.hawaii.gov/shwb/files/2013/10/glassADFFAQ.pdf
62 of 64
State of Hawaii. (n.d.). Volume 06, Chapter 0321, Section 342G-82. Retrieved from Hawaii
State Legislature: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-
0344/HRS0342G/HRS_0342G-0082.htm
State of Hawaii. (n.d.). Volume 06, Chapter 321, Section 342G-111. Retrieved from Hawaii
State Legislature: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-
0344/HRS0342G/HRS_0342G-0111.htm
State of New York Liquor Authority. (2016, April 12). Brand Label Registration Guidance.
Retrieved from https://sla.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2018/06/advisory2016-3-
brandlabelregistration.pdf
StateLiquorLaws.com. (2019). State Liquor Laws. Retrieved from
https://www.stateliquorlaws.com/: https://www.stateliquorlaws.com/
The Container Recycling Institute. (2017). 2015 Beverage Market Data Analysis.
The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN). (n.d.). Fact
Sheet: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) For Used Packaging. Retrieved from
EUROPEN: https://europen-
packaging.eu/component/downloads/downloads/1745.html?ptitle=
The New York State Senate. (n.d.). Bills & Laws. Retrieved from The New York State Senate:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills
The New York State Senate. (n.d.). Sec. 214-H Unit Pricing. Retrieved from New York
Agriculture & Markets Law: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/AGM/214-H
The Recycling Partnership. (2017). The 2016 State of Curbside Report. Retrieved from The
Recycling Partnership:
https://therecyclingpartnership.app.box.com/s/i0wvano7hi3dr3ivqxv689y4zzo583l2
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, July). Advancing Sustainable Materials
Management: 2015 Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
07/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Containers and Packaging: Product-
Specific Data. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/containers-
and-packaging-product-specific-data
63 of 64
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Containers and Packaging: Product-
Specific Data. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-
waste-and-recycling/containers-and-packaging-product-specific-data
Valiante, U. (2019, February). Report: A Vision For A Circular Economy For Plastics In Canada.
Retrieved from Smart Property Institute:
https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/report-circulareconomy-february14-
final.pdf
64 of 64

Bottle Bill Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bottle Bill Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

New York State

Pollution Prevention Institute

Final Report for:

New York State Department of

Impact Study of NYS Bottle Bill Expansion

B. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 5

D. Project Objective ................................................................................................................. 8

E. Work Performed and Results .............................................................................................. 8

Deposit Initiator  The bottler of containers  Bottlers

Distributor  Any person, firm, or corporation who  Allied Wine Corp

3rd-Party Agent  Pickup service providers  TOMRA

Dealer  Every person, firm, or corporation who  Retail Storefronts

Note: Data for stakeholder definitions from (New York State).

Curbside Recycling Collection of household recyclables by waste transporter

Recycling Rate Percentage of deposit containers recycled through redemption or curbside

Redemption Rate Percentage of deposit containers returned for deposit.

E. Work Performed and Results

Glass Deposit Containers (U.S.) 72%

Total Glass (Deposit States) 65%

Total Glass Produced (U.S.) 26%

Total Glass (Non-Deposit States) 25%

Glass Non-Deposit Containers (U.S.) 12%

Beer (10) Malt (10) Soft Drinks (10)

Figure 2 – Redeemable (Bottle Bill) Containers Accepted by State.

Deposit Value (in cents)

Redemption Rate Deposit (standard)

Figure 3 – Redemption Rate and Deposit Values by State.

Split Allocation Between

CT, MA State Bottle Bill Program

State General Fund

Alternative (Non-Bottle Bill) Legislative Approaches

Advocates of EPR cite the following rationales for its adoption:

Figure 5: Diagram of U.S. three tier system for alcohol distribution

A2660 / S5085 January 24, 2019 / April 8, 2019

High-level Summary of Proposed Bills

Detailed Summary of Proposed Bills

Task 3. Gather anecdotal information from stakeholders

Publicly-posted Feedback on Proposed Bills

Table 7. NY 2015 Beverage Sales by Beverage Type

Recycling Facilities Affected

Task 5. Complete a high-level cost / benefit analysis

Task 5 Methods and Results

Basic Parameters and Key Data

Sales (2015) Estimated Existing Recycling (2015)

Units Units Tons %

Liquor 133,642,273 15,737,687 11,295 12

Wine 354,279,555 41,719,889 25,805 12

Table 9: Current Deposit Container Recycling Rates + Fees

Table 10 – NYS Bottle Bill Expansion Cost Factors (Ongoing)

Calculated using hourly minimum wage

Redemption Deposit Initiators Redemption rate is for all deposit

Unredeemed NYS is entitled to 80% of unredeemed

Table 11 - NYS Bottle Bill Expansion Cost Factors (Upfront)

Note: Data from (New York State)

FEES REVENUE Wine Liquor Sub-Total

12% 65% 75% 100%

Deposit Initiator Dealer New York State

Direct Costs & Benefits to Beverage Industry by Stakeholder

Table 14 - Estimated Deposit Container Handling Fees by Redemption Rate

Bottles 12% 65% 75% 100%

TOTAL 487,921,828 $2,049,272 $11,100,222 $12,807,948 $17,077,264

Bottles 12% 65% 75% 100%

TOTAL 487,921,828 $585,506 $3,171,492 $3,659,414 $4,879,218

Redemption Deposit Amount to